Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by cleanbluesky, Feb 23, 2006.
Yes. Why should I let some thief walk off with my property.
You shouldn't have to accept that a thief may walk off with your property but there are a lot of things in life that don't seem entirely fair. Just to clarify you are talking about murdering someone because they are stealing from you, not because you have any more valid reason such as self defence?
By stating that you are allowed to kill an intruder you are setting a dangerous precedent, at that point intruders have nothing to lose by taking firearms or other dangerous weapons into a property and potentially there will be more deaths. People are likely to take that extra step, if you know that someone is likely to be armed and quite possibly going to kill you if you break in then normally three choices will present themselves 1) Don't do it 2) Make sure the house is empty 3) Break in with weaponry to counter that of the householder.
3) becomes a more likely scenario if you force people down this path. I don't see how this could be said to improve society whatsoever, it comes down to the strong or lucky survive because they have enough resources to protect themselves.
It wouldn't be murder. And why should I value a CRIMINALS life over my property rights. Should I let them walk off with goods I may have worked long and hard to be able to afford. What about irreplaceable items or those of great sentimental value. The rights of the law abiding victim trump those of the thief.
The stats from America don't back up your supposition regarding property theft/violence.
You ask for a right to use lethal force on an intruder to your property, I assume that you therefore intend to use that right and kill the other party should you feel it justified. Therefore unless you can prove self-defence you are talking about murder, we can argue about the fact it wouldn't be murder if you are legally allowed to do so but at present you are still talking about murder whichever way you dress it up.
The rights of the law abiding victim don't extend to killing another until and unless they fear for their life. Even if your property gets stolen I fail to see how that gives you the right to kill another who poses no other threat to you. If you want to look at it that way then the right to life trumps all, you can't simply waive away the rights of those you disagree with or indeed those who commit criminal actions. If you do then you become as bad as those you profess to despise, we extend the same rights to everyone otherwise we run the risk of having no rights at all.
I can't recall the statistics off the top of my head although I have seen some but we are talking about rather different cultures both in their approach to gun ownership and in respect of human life as well as the legal system. Maybe America's system would work over here but I have my doubts, as I've already said I don't value my property enough to consider taking someones life over it - my safety and that of my family then yes I would consider it but mere possessions aren't that important.
ok few intresting facts about break in's and the wonderfull term resonable force
somone breaks in according to the police you are ment to allow them to get out of your home and NOT pursue (reality somone breaks in normaly they will have a tool of some description and will use it if the need arroses, as for letting them walk out of your home, if they get out dont expect the police to catch them unless they are a well known thief who is local).
by law if you awake to find somone in your bedroom you can use what ever force you wish to protect yourself. (reality is a little different, as if you do crack the thief with a pool cue or chair, things any of us may have in our rooms. you will be done for assault even though you acted within the law).
resonable force is a fun one as it all comes down to how you can handle yourself and numbers. for example if your a amture martial artist or boxer and somone breaks in and you knock 7 bells out of them you will be up on assault. if 2 people break in and you knock one out and the other does a runner you will be up on assault BUT you can argue it was self defense as there was 2 people and you felt in great peril.
but if you are average joe and somone breaks in and you knock 7 bells out of them you will be let off with a warning and at extreams a caution and told not to go as far if it happens again. if two people break in and you knock one out as above you may very well get a photo in your local rag and a hand shake from your local chief inspector for standing up to the thiefs.
the facts between the above examples that differ are if you know how to fight in a ring at a recognised level, BUT the skill of the thiefs will never be brought in to it as will the fact they may very well be tooled up.
to be honest the best thing to do if you ever find yourself with some fool in your home is drag them upstairs and push them back down HARD, as all you did was chase them out and they fell. not your fault they fell tripping over there own feet.
anyone with a problem about that can go and look at some of the oap's who are now terrified to even unlock there front doors now after they had somone break in and beat them up for a few quid.
Thats one of the most misguided (and painful to read) posts i've read in a loooong time.
You're allowed to use reasonable force. What you are suggesting is that we should be allowed to use unreasonable force.
And whats reasonable about that?
you should go and explain that to people who have been robbed and beaten up in there own homes, as for unreasonable force whats unreasonable about knocking somone uncounstious who is trying to harm you and your family while stealing your belongings ??? if you think thats to much then i hope you never find yourself in that situation.
Does it need putting in big bold letters for people to understand?
The law already allows you to defend yourself if you percieve yourself as being in danger
What it does not allow is for you to attack people who pose no reasonable threat. If you believe that someone is likely to harm you or your family, you can already use reasonable force (even lethal force) under the law.
What you can't do is kill someone simply for being on your property if the reasonable person would not believe them to be a threat.
Im not sure that rabid appeals to evocative scenarios is going to persuade me that we should be allowed to attack people who are posing no serious threat.
Hold on a second there, you are talking about two different although occasionally related things. One is that someone attempts to steal from you, second is that person is also trying to harm(assault) you. One does not always directly lead to the second(at least not in a physical sense). It is unreasonable to attack someone if they are trying to leave and have not harmed you nor even threatened to harm you.
Your examples in your first post don't make that much sense either. I could go through them individually but one simple point I will make is that as a student in an art of defence(boxing, MA or whatever) you are held to a higher level of responsibility because of your training. The papers are just as likely to laud you for taking on a burglar regardless of your background so that doesn't matter either. Reasonable force is judged on your abilities this is true but anyone knocking "seven bells" out of someone is likely to have gone way above and beyond what is reasonable, you can negate them as an immediate threat but that is where it stops.
Don't hide the body, don't plan it, claim self-defence and insanity. Sorted. That is the impression i'm getting from the current system of law.
If the law changed as I suggested then no it wouldn't be murder, it would be a justified homicide. However at present it would be murder unless in self defence.
Rights are not an absolute, there are many instance in life where there is a conflict between Persons A rights and Persons B. We have customs, laws, courts to decide whose right supercedes the others. Here I'm saying that a criminal (whilst in the act) right to life should not supercede my right to my property.
Why would you need to claim insanity? If you have a reasonable claim of self-defence(and beating someone up or killing them for breaking in alone isn't reasonable) then you have a defence and it shouldn't be a problem.
Claiming insanity can put you in a bit of a spot if you are believed, mental institutions are not nice places to be.
Insanity is the back-up of course. Your get-out-of-jail-free card.
Would you be happy that someone else's right to property overrode your right to life?
The right to life is regarded as pretty much the highest one out there. That's why penalties for murder are so harsh.
Do you really believe that someone else's life (which is irreplaceable) is worth less than your property (which is easily replaceable, and indeed in most cases insured to allow replacement)?
Your right to life is absolute unless you are threatening anothers life, in that case the threatened person can strike first and kill if necessary. Otherwise your right to life is unequivocal so property can not and should not equal human life.
As I'm not in the habit of breaking into people homes and stealing their possesions its a risk I'm willing to take.
So to protect the burgulars life I have to inccur the cost of insuring my goods against theft. My solution is cheaper.
I don't know how much you know about the legal system but I get the feeling(not just from you) that a lot of people believe that insanity is easy to plead and have believed. It isn't, you need independent evidence from a trained professional(psychologist, psychiatrist or the like) as to the accuseds mental state. If you don't have that then you don't get to plead it or rather it won't be taken account of.
So you'd be happy for property to be rated higher than life, even if that life was your own? You do realise such logic would set an interesting (and probably dangerous) legal precedent, right? This wouldn't be something set in isolation, it would be a fundamental shift in the value of life according to the legal system.
Your solution is also ill-concieved and rather selfish.... Especially as the cleaning needed after the killing could well cost more than the goods in question
And yet the state makes no commitment to guarantee to protect your life, it will even punish you if you take steps to defend your own life. Afterall without a weapon a woman can offer very little effective defence against man intent on harming her. Unless the situation is equalised. New topic I realise but it does bear upon this one.
Separate names with a comma.