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. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Actually, we're pretty much expected to indulge them. A bit of a vague statment, but no-less descriptive than ideas of 'controlling' them?

    Its not about property. its about area, an area that an animal considers to be its own... if you don't understand ASK, don't state 'what I am telling you' because this is getting boring. If you think the idea of area doesn't tie into self-defence go and find a bear, sit in an area that it considers its territory and see how excited the bear gets.

    You could of course counter this this with "we're not bears" and require me to explain that bears and humans are both animals and the instinctual components that drive bears are also present in humans...

    I didn't ask for an explanation of that construction - I aksed you why you wanted to share that information

    That's nice.

    Perhaps if you had killed, you would know if you have the 'ability' or not - or perhaps be fit to place yourself 'above' others on the basis of that criteria.

    I'll admit that I have not had to defend my 'area' (read: property but not as in posessions) but my comments are based on my understanding of the animal kingdom which I have studied (and been a member of ;), as HUMANS ARE ANIMALS )

    I have said nothing specifically about property. Unless you mean property as in home-area and whatever items constitute that area. I feel that you are mistaking my points here, perhaps because in several posts we have not discussed the ideas that I set out in my original post, merely quibbled definitions.

    I don't see how comments on self-defence even come into the value of human life, nor do I consider that debating and commenting on instinctive reactions has anything to do with the concept of the 'value' of human life (you didn't specify how this value is expressed, and doing so would likely be off topic)

    Address the topic. My contention is that the current definition of 'reasonable' is an innapropriate construction that doesn't accomodate for the human instinct.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2006
  2. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    But cos the state cant be everywhere then ATEOTD you are responsible for protecting your own life, thus vigilanism does not come into it.
    Actually I do mean 'will' though I didn't make my point very well. If you take a preemptive measures you may be charged with possession of an offensive weapon, assault with an offensive weapon or murder. All because you placed a cricket bat next to your bed. You can grab your assailants weapon and kill him with it and not be prosecuted, you can go upstairs grab a shotgun run back down stairs and shoot the man attacking another and again not be prosecuted. But if you pre position a weapon or something which you later utilise as a weapon then that pre meditation leaves you vulnerable to prosecution.
    The law apllies to everyone including women. They should not be left vulnerable due to biology when there are technological equalisers.
     
  3. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Well under President Blair we cant be far of the day when the protestors will soon be detained by MI5 and carted off to a secret prison as terrorists.

    More seriously a company is not a person.

    As to the workers whan are you suggesting they kill the protestors?
     
  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    I assume you can give me some examples of people indulging these animal instincts without restriction (which is what you seem to be proposing)

    What is an area that you claim ownership for if it is not property? The only thing that is making your position seem difficult to understand is your lack of consistancy. In the passages I quoted you even used the term property as an interchangeable concept. Are you now changing the rules?

    Defense of territory does not tie in to defence of self, it is a seperate action.

    So are other things. Last time I checked that wasn't something that was accepted as a reason to allow infringement of the rights of another. Using the logic of animals is not a good way to go in this argument. We are animals, but we are not just animals.

    Because actions are relevant to the topic at hand?

    If you don't want to know information, don't ask other posters for it. You asked if I had some form of training in the area of weapons handling. That was the answer.

    I'm not sure whether or not the fact I've killed would be relevant. Or perhaps swords in trained hands are just fluffy, perhaps I couldn't kill with one at all...... Wait, that would be rather silly, wouldn't it?

    Again, the comparison to animals... If that is your best logic then it's not particularly useful. Humans are animals but animals are not human ;)

    My home is my property, as are the things in it. That's all they are, property. It's replaceable.

    Because you want to stretch the definition of self-defence to something else entirely, perhaps?

    See post 51

    Excluding the Tony Martin case (for reasons already outlined in this and other threads) can you give an example that you feel would justify that the law needs changing?
     
  5. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    Get out of jail free. Get into asylum free, too.
     
  6. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    It is still vigilanteism whenever you take the law into your own hands, it doesn't matter how you do it. You have stepped outside the boundaries of the law, you are not likely to be punished whenever you take reasonable steps to defend yourself(or even your property) however it all comes down to reasonableness.

    It is the premeditation aspect that is the problem, if you defend yourself it isn't an issue but to go that extra step and prepare a weapon is a step too far because you are not then acting in the heat of the moment. You have thought about it previously and acted in a manner suggesting you expect to use the weapon on someone.

    I'm not sure if I made my point clear enough before so I'll try again :) If a man is trying to hurt you with serious intent they are just as likely to succeed as if they were trying to hurt a woman. Gender isn't an automatic equaliser or a problem either, if someone wants to hurt you then the chances are high that you will get hurt by them no matter who you are.
     
  7. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    Maybe my fault for not being totally clear again, people are always likely to steal - it is part of human nature to covet others possessions. This means that some people are going to break into houses no matter what legislation allows in regard to home defence and if they are at risk from breaking in then if they are still going to break in they are more likely to go 'tooled up' so to speak. I don't know what would happen in the UK if people were allowed to use lethal force on housebreakers regardless of the circumstances but I think that if you would be playing a pretty dangerous game if you didn't expect those who are breaking in to also be armed in response.

    You can use force when faced with someone in your house but only in line with what is reasonable in the circumstances i.e. you must have an honest fear for your safety. Someone running off with your TV into the night isn't a threat to your safety so you can't beat them into a pulp. You can also hold a housebreaker if you apprehend them, nothing changes here but again you can't go beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. It comes down to individual circumstances of every case and always has done.
     
  8. JimmyEatWorms

    PermaBanned

    Joined: May 18, 2003

    Posts: 4,686

    Location: Londinium

    Then your understanding is very wide of the mark given that not every animal is territorial. You are comparing humans to bears (which are usually solitary)...but why not compare us to buffalo for example which live in large communities...much more human-like.
     
  9. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    You are wrong in your interpretation of the law, defending yourself from attack is not 'stepping outside the boundaries' self defence is a legitmate and lawful act, it is totally within the bounds of the law. If it wasn't it would be illegal. Reasonableness is a test used to determine if someones behaviour is within the parameters of the law in question. It does not determine the law itself.
    So why does me prepostioning a possible weapon months earlier make my behaviour criminal? Just why should I not be fully able to plan that if in the event I have as good a chance as possible of surviving an encounter with an attacker in my home? You appear to be surrendering the effective right to self defence by allowing the attacker to have a weapon but woe betide you, if in the supposed sanctity of your home you utilise a prepositioned object to defend yourself. Just what purpose does such a law serve? Was there a rash of innocent strangers being attacked by normally law abiding citizens lurking in their home?
    With regards violence gender is an issue. Woman are generally a lot smaller and weaker than men. An issue the law often addresses. So why not allow some redress in the field?
     
  10. tomos

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2004

    Posts: 2,292

    Location: Liverpool

    running off with the tv isnt a threat. but of course i'm not going to let that happen. i'm going to try and stop them and have every right to do that. the thief wont let me stop him.

    after this, unless it becomes a ridiculous (sp?) game of tug and war over the TV, the thief is going to get violent to take the tv - i dont know what he has on him, could be a gun, knife or just a screwdriver. whatever happens he's a threat and i have the right to eliminate that threat

    also, do i have to go through the above to consider the thief a threat to myself? the fact that he has broken into my house is IMO a threat to my safety, why cant i just whack him in the back of the head?
     
  11. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    Your TV is likely to be insured, it is simply a possession and not worth initiating a conflict over. If you initiate the fight then you put yourself into the wrong, it is all about if there is a threat to your safety and you responding reasonably to that. You also don't know if the thief will or won't stop on being challenged, they may be so surprised that they will simply drop the TV without any further prompting.

    Of course it isn't nice having possessions taken from you but that is surely better than risking serious injury over something that you can replace. Also I'd probably not pick words like eliminate - neutralise might be a little better as it doesn't suggest killing them off. :)

    Yes you probably do have to go through the process of evaluating the risk to yourself so you can respond appropriately, someone in your house is not an immediate threat to your safety per se so you cannot simply whack them or rather if you do then you will probably face criminal proceedings for assault possibly mitigated slightly by the fact that someone was in your house.
     
  12. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes here but if you are proposing to attack someone for breaking into your house then it is vigilanteism if they have not and are not posing a threat to your safety. I wouldn't attempt to dispute that self-defence is a legitimate response when in danger, I know that well enough but you did not appear to be proposing self-defence, you were proposing attacking someone which is totally outwith the intention of the defence.


    It is criminal because you are showing premeditation in storing a weapon with the intention of using it. It is along the same lines as if I go out carrying a can of mace because I might be mugged, you are usurping the polices function and taking the law into your own hands. If you change yourself from a passive role to that of an offensive one by arming yourself before the event you cannot then plead self-defence. If your attacker is armed then they will also be judged to have premeditated their actions and this lead to more serious penalties for them as well.

    Because you are then opening up a pathway, if women can be armed then why can't men etc.
     
  13. tomos

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2004

    Posts: 2,292

    Location: Liverpool

    1st, i dont initiate the fight IMO, i grab my tv back. maybe the thief would run off, or attack me. that would be the thiefs choice.

    as far as how the thief will respond, whether they are scared and run off, or not. why should i test that? if i have my home invaded - why should i risk my safety on the basis that they MIGHT not attack and kill me?

    you also say i have to evaluate the risk to myself? do you really think a normal person, woken up at say - 2am, by a noise downstairs upon seeing someone who has broken into their house, stealing their possessions would be in a mental state capable of doing an analysis?

    if somethig happens on the street, you (as i think most of us in truth would) would probably choose the flight over the fight response. to me, that doesnt apply here. every animal wants to protect its home/nest of whatever. deep down, humans are no different. if we had time to think it over and let our intelect intervene - then maybe we would choose a more evolved approach. in reality however, i imagine that insinct, fear and the need to protect what is ours would be the more powerful drives in this scenario.

    if someones instincts were to smack them in the back of the head and the thief dies, why should they be punished for this? its not pre-meditated, it has no bearing on what that person would do in society in general - i mean be a threat or anything, and more than that - they didnt put themselves in that position. the thief did.

    to me it comes down to the simple fact, that the only person who has a choice in all this is the thief. if your instincts are to be quiet and hope he goes away - thats what you'll do.

    if your instincts are to attack - again, thats what you'll do.

    we're not soldiers who get training to handle stress in scenarios where you're life is (or potentially) at risk, we're everyday people. seems some people forget that.
     
  14. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    But here all you are really talking about is the "reasonable person" response already present in law. If a reasonable person is likely to feel threatened, then any reasonable response will not get you in trouble.

    Where it becomes unreasonable is where you act when a reasonable person (in that given situation) would not believe they were under threat.

    There is a good argument that attacking someone who has broken into your home is a reasonable response, in fact this has been held up time and time again in court.

    Where it becomes unreasonable is if you attack someone who is clearly no threat (for example someone running away). If you scared the burglar, and he dropped the TV and ran, and you chased him, that's not a defence response, no matter how you want to portray it.
     
  15. tomos

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 17, 2004

    Posts: 2,292

    Location: Liverpool

    if he runs away, i agree. i dont think i would run after him or anything.

    the way its been described in the rest of the thread, or at least how i have read it, is that if someone breaks into your house, you either have to do nothing at all, or announce your presence and let THEM decide whether to make it violent or not.
     
  16. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,829

    Location: Glasgow

    It depends how the scenario pans out but from what you describe you are initiating the conflict because the thief was leaving until you stopped them, they had offered you no harm. You don't have to risk your safety, you don't have to try and snatch your TV back. As I keep saying it is a replaceable possession, probably insured as well so to risk your life over it seems daft to say the least.

    You evaluate situations every day, this one will have more pressure and potentially risk than most and will be judged accordingly. The tests applied to whether you acted reasonably will be less stringent than if you have been trained in such situations and will take into account time of day, state of disorientation etc.

    We are just everyday people and that is the point, we don't know necessarily how to respond appropriately to every scenario and your instinctive response isn't always the best one. Your instincts can cause you to do or think a lot of things but you shouldn't always act on them, some instinctive responses are not reasonable because as humans we tend to think of ourselves as civilised and because of that set ourselves standards of behaviour.
     
  17. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Not at all. Some people like to claim that it is, but in reality the law isn't like that at all. I covered it mostly in post 51 (which no-one has responded to yet)

    Basically you would normally get away with attacking someone who's intentions were unknown (beyond that they have broken into your house), provided the force you used was the minimum that a reasonable person would have believed necessary to neutralise the threat.

    You don't have to announce your presence or let them make the first move if you would have reasonable grounds to believe them to be a threat (and them being in your house is actually a good start to that). However, you have to stop when a reasonable person would expect the danger to have passed.

    I'm still waiting for a court judgement that people would justify to change the law (apart from Tony Martin, for reasons already discussed, his actions did not constitute self defence by any definintion)

    -Dolph
     
  18. Thing

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 7, 2005

    Posts: 204

    As the law stands, you are allowed to make a citizens arrest on someone trespassing in your property. Same goes for if they are committing any other crime (theft of your TV for example). So, if you think you can do it, you can take them on.

    Unless you go overboard (knifing them in the back by ambush for example) THEN THE LAW WILL NOT STOP YOU. If you do knife them then you will probably get a manslaughter conviction (or GBH maybe, neither of which will get you a major sentence, a sympathetic judge would let you out on good behaviour).

    We have all the power we need to defend our homes.

    Thing is, I've never had the opportunity to use mine. Both burglaries of my house have been while I am on holiday. Short of booby traps (which are illegal, with good reason) there's nothing to do about that except ring the insurance company and tell the cops.
     
  19. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    Actually, Dolph, someone's right to property already overrides the right to life in some situations, and burglars is one of them. Even under UK law, people are allowed to use reasonable force to protect themselves AND their property.
     
  20. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    I don't know if I'm capable of killing someone as I've never had to do it .... and I'm very glad that is the case. However, I have pulled a gun on someone and was fully prepared to use it. I wasn't planning to, and certainly was hoping not to, but I was prepared to use it if necessary. Luckily, the burglar believed me when I told him I was armed and he froze like a good boy.

    It turned out, after the police arrived, that he was armed himself.

    And THAT is why I regard burglars as fair game. See, when a burglar breaks into my house in the middle of the night and my wife and kids are in bed, I'm not too concerned about trying to work out whether he's only an unarmed burglar, an armed and dangerous one or maybe a homicidal maniac. I'm going to assume one of the latter and act accordingly, because failing to do so could cost me and my family our lives. I had the drop on him, had him cold and he got the ONE chance to do as he was told. If he'd reacted wrongly, I would have fired and I would not have been aiming to wound. My intention would have been to eliminate any threat, and the Queensbury rules would not have been an issue. It would not have been my overt intention to kill, but two or three rounds in the torso would be very likely to have that effect.

    When someone breaks into my house in the night, just how do I know what level of threat he poses? How was I supposed to know if he had a gun or not, or if he was prepared to use it? My answer is simple - I assume he poses a deadly threat and deal with him accordingly. He got a warning, and that ONE warning was all he was going to get. He's alive because he took it seriously.

    When there are burglars breaking into houses and carrying guns to do so, I'm going to assume that any[ burglar represents that level of threat until or unless I find out differently.

    This was not in the UK, by the way.