High Court: Homeowners can use 'disproportionate force' against burglars

acemastr said:
You do keep finding loopholes in the logic I'm trying to get over lol

To each their own, I'd rather use excessive/deadly force when needed than live in fear of the police action taken against me. Not that any would be here.
Click to expand...

Don't you live in america where fear of the police has been a hot topic? :p

Also, where do you get the assumption that people here live in fear of the police? I cant imagine one person that would hesitate to defend themselves against an attacker in their own home due to the police. What you cant seem to comprehend is the responses in between shooting a guy in the back of the head just in case and just giving away your stuff for funzies. \smh

My 'loopholes' like saying the guys who beat up the guy were not burglars and therefore nothing to do with reasonable violence against burglars = reasonable argument. comparing banning guns to banning scissors = irrational
 
You've just taken the 2 complete opposite ends of the spectrum, shooting in the back of the head and giving away your stuff. What if he has a knife and is facing you as you walk out of your bedroom? or a baseball bat?

A gun doesn't kill anyone, nor do scissors.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Don't you live in america where fear of the police has been a hot topic? :p

Also, where do you get the assumption that people here live in fear of the police? I cant imagine one person that would hesitate to defend themselves against an attacker in their own home due to the police. What you cant seem to comprehend is the responses in between shooting a guy in the back of the head just in case and just giving away your stuff for funzies. \smh

My 'loopholes' like saying the guys who beat up the guy were not burglars and therefore nothing to do with reasonable violence against burglars = reasonable argument. comparing banning guns to banning scissors = irrational
Click to expand...

In America the criminals fear the police - in Britain it's the householders.
 
acemastr said:
They wish to do you harm, be it from stealing your possessions or actual bodily harm. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground doctrine for me thanks, I have the right to defend myself, my family and my property, that's exactly what I'll do every single time someone enters my home with bad intentions.

Not entirely sure why this is being debated. "Absolutely Mr Burglar, please take my possessions for yourself"
Click to expand...

I think it's being debated because Castle Doctrine does nothing to protect you if you're not aware of the intruder, and leads to cases where householders can basically get away with shooting first and then asking questions when someone is on their property.

Every year innocent people get killed by gun happy idiots who shoot first and then ask "why was that person knocking on my door" and it's basically treated as "stuff happens" or the fault of the dead person for being stupid enough to walk up to a house and knock on the door.
IIRC about 5-10 years ago a UK tourist in the states got shot and killed when his car broke down and tried to get help at a nearby house, and I've heard of a bunch of other similar cases involving shots fired at people looking for assistance (break downs, lost etc).

Once you know your life is in danger, or someone has actually attempted to get in the house, then fine, use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself and family (which BTW is how the UK law effectively works), but opening the door to someone who has knocked and then shooting them, or shooting them when they're on the lawn or path but not even reached the house, and have no visible weapons etc, sort of dodgy.
 
Werewolf said:
I think it's being debated because Castle Doctrine does nothing to protect you if you're not aware of the intruder, and leads to cases where householders can basically get away with shooting first and then asking questions when someone is on their property.

Every year innocent people get killed by gun happy idiots who shoot first and then ask "why was that person knocking on my door" and it's basically treated as "stuff happens" or the fault of the dead person for being stupid enough to walk up to a house and knock on the door.
IIRC about 5-10 years ago a UK tourist in the states got shot and killed when his car broke down and tried to get help at a nearby house, and I've heard of a bunch of other similar cases involving shots fired at people looking for assistance (break downs, lost etc).

Once you know your life is in danger, or someone has actually attempted to get in the house, then fine, use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself and family (which BTW is how the UK law effectively works), but opening the door to someone who has knocked and then shooting them, or shooting them when they're on the lawn or path but not even reached the house, and have no visible weapons etc, sort of dodgy.
Click to expand...

I remember that, he walked straight into someones garage I believe, he couldn't have known about the doctrine but walking into someone's garage is dangerous.

I know it isn't perfect, the gun laws aren't perfect, but they do help protect the law abiding 'sane' person.
 
acemastr said:
They wish to do you harm, be it from stealing your possessions or actual bodily harm. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground doctrine for me thanks, I have the right to defend myself, my family and my property, that's exactly what I'll do every single time someone enters my home with bad intentions.

Not entirely sure why this is being debated. "Absolutely Mr Burglar, please take my possessions for yourself"
Click to expand...

You should be sure, since you're making it up. How can you not be sure of a position that you're making up? Nobody is arguing that people should not have the right to defend themself or anyone else or their property.

What's being debated is whether or not people should have the right to torture or kill people for their own enjoyment (either direct pleasure in the torture and killing or pleasure in vengeance) and pretend that's defence or to kill as a first course of action regardless of circumstances and not care about it.
 
and you're stating it'd be for pleasure (who said anything about torturing?). Simple fact is, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night they do NOT have good intentions, so yes, I can shoot them.
 
Apologies... Cba to read entire thread
Break into my house, threaten my family and I will gladly use disproportionate force, utilising whatever I have to hand
 
acemastr said:
and you're stating it'd be for pleasure (who said anything about torturing?). Simple fact is, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night they do NOT have good intentions, so yes, I can shoot them.
Click to expand...

It helps if you read a whole sentence rather than just part of it. I'll quote the part you didn't read to save you looking back at the post:

"[..]or to kill as a first course of action regardless of circumstances and not care about it."

Which is what you're talking about. Other people have been talking about torturing and/or killing people and they're obviously enjoying the fantasy. Perhaps they'd enjoy the reality, perhaps not.
 
acemastr said:
I remember that, he walked straight into someones garage I believe, he couldn't have known about the doctrine but walking into someone's garage is dangerous.

I know it isn't perfect, the gun laws aren't perfect, but they do help protect the law abiding 'sane' person.
Click to expand...

No they don't, gun owners are more likely to be shot than non-gun owners, and quite possibly by their own gun.
 
acemastr said:
I know it isn't perfect, the gun laws aren't perfect, but they do help protect the law abiding 'sane' person.
Click to expand...

You do realise that far more gun owners have killed themselves and/or family and friends with their firearms than dished out the judge/jury/executioner treatment you fantasise over right?

Advocating owning a gun as a form of defense against burglary is a bit like setting a bear trap by your front door. Sure, remembering every time you leave the house to step over it will help but the chances are you're far more likely to lose a leg than any home invader ever is.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
What if they break into your house and just take your TV and pose no threat to your family?
Click to expand...
Just to point out, the test isn't what threat they pose. It's what threat the homeowner honestly believed they posed, even if it subsequently turned out to be mistaken belief.

And it's that kind of distinction that has most people thoroughly confused as to what level of force counts as reasonable for the purposes of a self-defence defence, and what doesn't.

The fact is, nobody really knows what they'll do in that situation unless they've faced it for real. I suspect most people would probably freeze in shock, caught between adrenalin fight and flight reaction, rather like a rabbit in headlights. When you do face it, you're far to busy in the moment to be thinking about calibrating 'force' to be reasonable.

Fortunately, at least in the UK, most burglars are uninterested in confrontation or fighting, and if they are caught in the act, that householder adrenalin freeze gives them the perfect opportunity to clear off. Remember, the householder is probably shocked by the situation, but the burglar isn't, his adrenalin is already up, because he knows he burgling someone. He likely doesn't suffer that brief freeze.
 
acemastr said:
You have NO idea what their intention is.
Click to expand...

Neither does someone who is legally allowed a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 30rnd magazine compared to someone with a baseball bat.

However the chances of a defendant chasing someone down the street with a bat vs someone popping off rounds at a fleeing robber are highly weighed towards the shooter.

UK gun laws are fine as they are imo, and thats coming from someone who has abided by them in various forms since childhood.

It doesnt matter about intention as far as reaction goes, it could be some bloke taking your TV as has been said and you pick up a bat. He runs out the door, thats when its not OK to go killing.

Its that picking up of the bat that is OK, and I'd support that any day. But when guns get brought into the equation things change.

All in all I think lethal force is acceptable only when a life is threatened, and I'm pretty sure thats where the UK courts stand too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom