1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Your home is your castle

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by cleanbluesky, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Lets be clear my proposal is that I'd be setting my right to my property over the right to life of the criminal in the act of thieving. It is a pretty limited exception to the current situation. And yes it would be a reversal of current legal attempts to remove from the citizen all responsibility for his/her life and property.
     
  2. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    The state cannot be everywhere at once, what you do get however is that the state will attempt to apprehend and punish those who transgress against you. It may not always succeed but then again there are no guarantees that you would either as a vigilante plus you are more likely to get the wrong person.

    I don't think you mean "will" either, the state may punish you if you do go beyond reasonable force but you will first face a trial and then if applicable you will be convicted for it.

    There isn't much need to bring women into it, it is emotive and doesn't really bear that much on the issue. If a man is intent on harming you(as a man) then chances are pretty high that he will succeed.
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,452

    Location: Plymouth

    Erm, you remember all those pesky murder and manslaughter laws, right?

    The state will also not punish you if you act to defend yourself, for the umpteenth time. Even use of a weapon is perfectly legal if used in a reasonable fashion, and that certainly can and does include lethal force.

    If you're going to argue for CCW handgun permits or similar, then I'll agree with you, but lets not try and stretch the lines of self defence.
     
  4. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    why include words such as 'punish', 'revenge' and 'retribution' into the debate when no-one suggested these.

    I have already explained why any non-premeditated response should be fine, if you dont understand my reasoning, ask for specifics
     
  5. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,452

    Location: Plymouth

    To use the standard slippery slope analogy, what about the right to a company to work unhindered? What about those people who work for huntingdon life sciences who have been subject to both intimidation and property damage. Would you allow them to kill the protestors?

    If not, what is the difference?
     
  6. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Dolph, you are talking about a 'right' of self defence, but what about the 'reaction' of self-defence... the concept of self-defence is something that is intrinsic to each animal and existed long before, law, 'rights' and words... surely we should legislate in line with this instinct rather than try to punish those who follow this instinct because they have contravened constructed laws.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,452

    Location: Plymouth

    You haven't really discussed your reasoning. You've claimed there could be an evolutionary justification to the reaction, yet if such a claim was brought up if we were discussing sexual assault, you would be the first to rubbish it and claim that it was no defence.

    Your entire logic seems to be "people will want to do it so they should be allowed" but you haven't really covered why people want to do it.

    There is a big difference between defense and offense, you seem to want to claim they are the same and should be treated as such.
     
  8. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,452

    Location: Plymouth

    Because we are a society, not animals?

    Because as a society we are required to control our base urges for various things?

    Because we are capable of a more reasoned response should we choose to make it?

    I'd be interested to poll those posting in this thread on whether or not they have a decent ability to kill..... Previous threads have shown that those most capable of doing it are the least likely to, whereas those who wouldn't know how are the most vocal.

    Personally, I would never draw a weapon on someone (sword or firearm as the two weapons I have plenty of experience with) unless I was planning on killing them, and I would never kill someone over something as petty as property. Nor would I used red-zone blows on someone unarmed unless I was trying to kill them.

    Too many people seem far too willing to consider the lives of others worthless. The problem with that is that as soon as you start considering the lives of others worthless, you give permission for them to do exactly the same, and that's a bad thing.
     
  9. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    If you want to discuss this then do so, rather than decide what I'd say and then dismiss the opinions you've given me without asking what I think...

    That isn't my attitude - my attitude is that a person may be pre-disposed to a very specific remit of behaviour in such situations and that the response for that may not fit within what many would like to place inside the box called 'right to self-defence'... I think a person should have the right to defend their home in the manner that they are born to do, and that is with potentially viscious, red-blooded and promptly.

    Self-defence on the street is a very different affair to self-defence in the home because the subject would be on their own personal territory and the reaction to this challenge in the heat of the moment is not the same as can be considered 'reasonable' by a committe or other organised body.
    No-one should be expected to run from such a challenge on their own territory, nor should they be expected to be cautious of potential prosecution because judges disapprove of something they did on instinct. No-one should have to be wary or restricted while defending themselves from harm, as long as their response is immediate and their target is those who wished to do them or their property harm
     
  10. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    We're both actually - we're animals that live in a society.

    No, we are expected to 'mediate' our urges, just like any other animal. The urge to kill, eat and screw are all mediated by social urges just like any animal. Our social requirements are more complex in many ways than most other animals, yet much of our social rules is still based on instinct - we value our own lives and what it takes to maintain them.

    I would say that a reasonable response is that which I have outlined.

    I doubt you poll who has a 'decent ability to kill'

    I'm glad you wouldn't kill someone over property, how about we stay on topic of self-defence? I'm curious as to what including the construction of 'red-zone' has to do with anyone, unless you are hinting that you are somehow trained or educated in the art of using weapons. I'd expect that you haven't been in any service, due to previous comments you've made on your medical status that would preclude you from joining the army. Very few people have access legal access to firearms, and even then they would likely be secured for all except military personell. I doubt there are many citizen self-defence situations that would involve a precise weapon, although perhaps martial arts weapon

    Is anyone doing this, because I'm not.

    I know the value of someone's life and I also know that the constructions we have on 'appropriate behaviour' can get dismissed when people actually find themselves in such situations. Which is why legislation should be around observable traits rather than a moral code. We should not legistlate to let people behave however they wish, yet we should remember the psychological mechanism that come into play when something as primal as a self-defence situation in a person's own environment is encountered.
     
  11. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,452

    Location: Plymouth

    Which is, presumably, why the courts are full of people being tried for defending their property.... Wait, no they aren't. For most people, the definition of reasonable force clearly works, because people aren't constantly breaching it.

    But again, the courts are not full of people like this. In fact, the law is actually written in a way totally different to how you are presenting it, which may be where you are getting confused.

    The law, as it stands on self defence, works as follows.

    The threat should have been discernable by a reasonable person (as defined by the jury, a group of 12 of your peers, probably the most convincing 'reasonable person' definition there is)

    The force should have been a reasonable response to the threat, again, defined by the jury of your peers.

    If you woke up to find someone looming over you in your home, and kicked seven bells out of them until you were sure the threat had passed, then you would be found innocent, it's a reasonable response.

    If, on the other hand, you continue to attack when a reasonable person would believe the threat has passed, then you aren't acting in self defence. If you keep kicking someone unconcious on the ground when you know they aren't a threat, for example, or attack someone as they are trying to leave.

    There is no conspiracy of committees defining what constitutes self defence, it's decided in most cases by a jury on a case by case basis.

    People very rarely get prosecuted at all for defending their own home, let alone successfully. Those who do are those who went beyond reasonable defence (such as Tony Martin if you actually look at the facts rather than the hype, although as I said in the other thread, he wasn't acting in self defence, but he also wasn't acting of sound mind), and there's nothing wrong with that.

    The system, as it stands, does actually work well, unless you can think of a good case (apart from Tony Martin, which has already been covered and discredited) to justify a change in the law.
     
  12. perplex

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2005

    Posts: 452

    I'd love to be burgled so I could kill them and make it look like self defense.
     
  13. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,452

    Location: Plymouth

    But we are still expected to moderate and control them, are we not?

    What you are talking about is defence of property, not self defence. To quote you earlier...

    So discussion of the differences between defence of self and defence of property is perfectly fair. You seem to want to make the two equivilent, but they are not. They are two seperate issues, and should be addressed as such.

    A 'red-zone' refers to areas of the body where strikes (unarmed or armed) carry a significant chance of causing permenant injury or death (for example, head and throat). As for being trained in combat and using weapons, over a decade of martial arts (principally Aikido and Iaido, bits of judo and thai-boxing thrown in) would provide a good base. As would the fact that I used to shoot regularly on ranges (both rifles and handguns up until their banning) provide me with a reasonable grounding in firearms. If I wanted or needed a weapon there are about a dozen live blades downstairs, and in a close combat situation I'd much rather go up against someone wielding a gun than a sword (and inside a house would be a close combat situation)

    Most people who I know who have done martial arts (or served in the forces for that matter) share similar attitudes to mine, it's a classic case of those actually having power or ability being the least likely to actually use it.

    You may believe you aren't doing this, but it's certainly how you come across in your posts. Worthless is probably the wrong term. Worth less than their property would be more accurate, so I apologise for any misunderstanding on that particular point.

    See my post above. The law already does this. What you want to do is change it so that anything can be justified as self defence, even if it clearly isn't.
     
  14. Mickey_D

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 9, 2003

    Posts: 6,204

    Location: Gone......

    Having been in the military (both US and Canada) and having been trained in the military way of defending a stronghold (which is what a house undeniably is), I generally have a hard time wraping my brain around why there is a distinct difference between the army defending a post and a homeowner defending his home. If an intruder gets shot in a military camp, nobody bats an eyelid.

    But when a homeowner tries to defend themselves in thier own home, THEY are the ones under prosecution. Where's the logic in that? Shouldn't the trespasser be the one defending thier case in court? Isn't the precedent "innocent until proven guilty"? So why then is the criminal trespasser given more rights to freedom than the homeowner?

    Going back to the military side of things, it's not even like the military had to PAY for the land they are setting up camp on, and yet nobody really questions when an intruder is dropped. But a homeowner that has slaved 3/4 of thier lives scraping together every penny they've made cannot protect thier home for fear of prosecution (a VERY founded fear due to precedent)?

    There's something VERY wrong when a government can get away with what a homeowner will get prosecuted for......
     
  15. perplex

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2005

    Posts: 452

    Pass me the hookah, thanks.
     
  16. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 25, 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    Sorry but I think your very wrong here. Theres a big difference between stealing and assault, a thief may not wish to use violence and therefore would probably choose your first option over the third one.

    I'm still on the fence on this issue, on the one hand we need a way to deter thieves from breaking and entering because our current justice system obviously doesn't do the trick.

    On the other hand you can't justify deadly attacks based on your property being stolen/ property being entered because its just immoral.

    I think there should be a compromise, I believe we should be able to use some amount of force when faced with burglars (excluding deadly attacks/ killing) and we should also be allowed to lock them in rooms or restrain them until the authoroties arrive but obviously with a time limit to prevent any loopholes.
     
  17. Mickey_D

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 9, 2003

    Posts: 6,204

    Location: Gone......


    Please see my recent thread in GD about my "interesting drive home".......
     
  18. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Have you had any comeback on that yet?
     
  19. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    To Sleepy's point, here is an excerpt from the State of Texas' Penal Law on Self Defense, it often is called the "John Wayne Rule":

    Needless to say, there are commensurate provisions for defense of the person.
     
  20. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 25, 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    I was thinking about that while typing my post actually, thought it best not to mention it though.