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. perplex

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2005

    Posts: 452

    Do you guys realise how easy it is to make it look like self defense? I don't see what the big discussion is about. Are you willing to risk yours and your family's life just because of some stupid law? I say, slice and dice.
     
  2. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    What does reasonable force have to do with someone's right to life?

    If the force is reasonable, no one's life should be in danger.
     
  3. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    yes, ultimately it would come down to this although it would be nice to believe in a world whereby the authorities wont try to punish you for doing what is most important to you
     
  4. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Reasonable is based on someones state of mind at the time. So waking up to a stranger in your bedroom it would be reasonable to assume the worse.

    You are also assuming the attacker/intruder is reasonable, a proposition allready put into doubt if they've violated your property rights by breaking into your home. A number of nutjobs out there are not reasonable, rapists, pyschopaths etc come to mind.
     
  5. Cueball

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 24, 2005

    Posts: 1,395

    "What to do when someone breaks into your home"

    Run away, fast. Prefably whilst screaming "please don't hurt me!!!"

    If retreat is not possible, offer to help the burgler shift your stuff into the back of your car, then give them the keys to your car.

    If they wish to have their wicked way with your wife/daughter, or if you are female yourself and they wish to have their wicked way with you: let them.

    In short: do nothing to them. I've rigged an ejector seat in my house. As soon as some BG enters, I'm outta there.

    Alternatively: slice n dice.
     
  6. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    Alternative 3 is to simply act like a reasonable person and accept that you have the right to take reasonable steps to defend yourself(and your property) from a risk if necessary. This does not imply that you may attack someone when they pose no immediate threat to you and doesn't allow torture.

    No-one here or in a court of law(which is somewhat more relevant to the question) has said that you must do nothing when confronted with a housebreaker, that is you putting your own spin on things. You are legally allowed to use reasonable force to counter a threat to yourself and your state of mind and the individual circumstances of the case will be taken into account.
     
  7. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    The authorities aren't trying to punish you for doing what is "most important to you" unless by that you mean unleashing your own form of retribution on someone breaking into your house.
     
  8. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    For the answer to that, look at the post of Dolph's that I quoted and what I said. Dolph seems to be arguing that the burglar's life has a higher value than my property, and that the use of reasonable force is restricted to defending your person or that of others ....
    My point is that you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend your property .... and if circumstances are such, reasonable includes deadly. Therefore the law permits you, under certain circumstances, to kill to protect your property. The only restriction is that force used, whether defending yourself, other people OR property, is "reasonable". The definition, however, of what the law means by "reasonable" is very slippery. Is it quite possible for a householder to go beyond "reasonable", because the average householder really has no idea how far he can go, and when finding himself in a situation with an intruder in the house in the middle of the night, clarity of thought is not likely to be uppernmost in his mind, and a Google search for "reasonable force" certainly isn't.

    The householder is therefore put in the invidious position of risking a lengthy jail sentence simply for defendng his own property in his own house from someone that had to break in to get there, if he goes beyond "reasonable", without even knoiwing where that line is. He just has to hope he gets it right. This is a farcical situation.

    So, to directly address the point Dolph made om another post, no, I don't value a burglars life above my property. Definitely and emphatically not and I will use deadly force, if necessary to defend myself and my property. If a burglar wants to avoid getting hurt or killed by me don't naffing burgle me!

    I'll go beyond that. If I were to end up on a jury of a householder accused of injuring or killing a burglar, I can say now my vote will be not guilty, regardless of what the law says or judges directions may be. The burglar had no right at all to be there, and for me it is as simple as that. The burglar shows no sympathy for his victim, or he wouldn't be there in the first place, and I damned if I'm going to so much as bat an eyelid if a burglar becomes a victim. All he has to do to avoid that risk is stop burgling. It ain't exactly rocket science.

    And that's my link between right to life and reasonable force. A burglar's right to life does NOT override my right to use force, up to an including deadly force, to defend it .... providing that deadly force is reasonable.
     
  9. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 28, 2005

    Posts: 48,109

    Location: On the hoods

    The burglar's life is more valuable than your property. Any life is.

    Does it? The only time you could warrant killing someone is if your life is in danger, and that is very different from your property being in danger.

    I highly doubt that it does. As I said above - I think the law allows you to kill to protect your life, but that's not the same as killing to protect your property.

    Blah. And what if I kill someone in a road rage attack because they were speeding and endangering my life and my shiny car? Think that's going to hold up? Just because you were a victim of their crime doesn't mean they suddenly cease being a victim of yours.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2006
  10. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Yet you have said that taking steps to defend yourself is unreasonable. Why do you insist upon giving the criminal all the advantage? Just what principle are you supporting by considering it a criminal act not to allow someone an effective means of protection?
    First neither the police or the state are morally or legally required to protect your life. Therefore you are not usurping there function by being responsible for your own life. You are in fact fully undertakeing your civic responsibilities. How do you decide that taking actions to protect your life makes you legally responsible for the actions of a criminal? I am struggling to understand where you are coming from. Also what do you mean by "passive role to that of an offensive one" Taking steps to protect your self is not offensive, does better locks mean I'm guilty of causing the burgular to carry a bigger hammer to break into my home and possibly attak me or my loved ones. Surely by your logic locks should be illegal?

    Does learning a martial art mean I've now taken an offensive act and that any burglar/nutter who attacks me is fully justified in using a weapon in an attack. Afterall its my fault for being prepared and making my attacker fear for his life. Please tell me how you justify this?
     
  11. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Martial arts are not simply about learning to kick **** out of someone. Its about self control, and learning how to respond to a situation in the most appropriate way.
     
  12. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Why?
    A person is responsible for their actions and their consequences, fundamental of western society. You are not a victim if you are immediately effected by a chain of events that you yourself set in motion. To be a victim means to be subjected to events caused by an external source over which you have no/limited control. Being hurt cos the person you attacked does not make you a victim, if you don't want to risk the pain then don't attack someone, seems simple to me.
     
  13. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Nope according to semi-pro waster if you defend yourself with any prior weapon you are not able to plead self defence. By that logic a martial art can only be a form of exercise. Any actual use of any technique is a premeditated attack and should be fully punished by the law.
     
  14. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Exactly. And if your actions result in the unnecessary death of someone then you should pay the price.
     
  15. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    err where've you been, thats what this whole debate is ultimately about. Just replace unnecessary with illegal.
     
  16. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,567

    Location: Plymouth

    He's entirely wrong, however.

    What does matter if you're a martial artist is that you would be expected to have a better handle on what is a reasonable response to neutralise a threat.

    That is slightly different to deliberately putting a baseball bat by the bed, for example.
     
  17. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    I cannot see the difference. They are both, in this context legal preparatory acts. So why in a home invason scenario should one be considered illegal and the other legal?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2006
  18. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,567

    Location: Plymouth

    No, they aren't. Learning martial arts would be like learning to use a baseball bat. They have legitimate use and so on.

    If you stated repeatedly in front of witnesses that you were only learning martial arts to kick the crap out of burglers, then you would be on dodgy ground if that was brought up in court (although any martial arts instructor worth anything would refuse to teach you if you told them that)
     
  19. semi-pro waster

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 27, 2004

    Posts: 25,832

    Location: Glasgow

    Talk about misinterpreting, I didn't say nor would I that you cannot utilise what is available to defend yourself in a reasonable manner. For example if someone rushes threateningly at you and you hit them with an ashtray(because it is there) then you will probably be judged to have acted reasonably based on the threat that exists. However to pre-emptively put a gun/baseball bat/any offensive weapon in place before any threat is made upon your safety is not legitimate.

    Martial Arts are a form of self-defence and I'd don't believe I have said otherwise. However as others have pointed out you are taught self control and because of your (perceived) increase in coolness and potency under attack you will be judged to a higher standard of culpability than someone who is entirely untrained. Same principle if you had been in the military, you are trained to react under pressure and make snap decisions.

    No I didn't, I actually said that arming yourself would be illegal and unreasonable. This is a subtle but very important difference. I have always and will always maintain that you are allowed to defend yourself in a reasonable manner should you be threatened, this doesn't imply retribution, doesn't imply arming yourself on the off-chance you might be attacked but simply if or when you are attacked then responding to neutralise the current threat then stopping.

    The principle that I am supporting amongst certain others is the rule of law, vigilateism is not to be encouraged.

    The state has a responsibility towards their citizens, they are to protect them. I'd be calling that a moral and legal obligation in the absence of any better terms, of course the state (and police) cannot protect everyone at all times which is unfortunate but doesn't mean that a duty is not there.

    Going from a passive role as an "atackee" to that of an "attacker" by arming yourself. It is similar to trying to 'booby-trap' your house just that you will be the one wielding the booby-trap.

    My logic doesn't dictate that locks are illegal and I think you are rather stretching the bounds of probability to suggest so. A lock is a passive device designed to prevent entry(or exit) by something or someone.
     
  20. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    First off I've amended my post slightly.

    Are you supporting the current legal postion that storing an item in your bedroom for use to defend yourself/family in a home invasion scenario is illegal.

    TBH I thought you would be against such a position

    As to martial arts many people take them up motivated primarily for self defence reasons. Actual Self Defence classes for women of course are totally aimed at protection. Your logic seems to be that if these people use their knowledge then they are liable? [/bemused]