Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:In the US that was a common misconception as applied to lethal self defense (as disparate from self defense in general). You're requirements were not on proportionality but on the test of whether yoyu were preventing potential lethal occurrences against yourself or others. Proportionality was a factor in regular self defense though and this may have been a split between US and non-US.

Its a stupid idea frankly. If he pulls a knife I want to stop him from killing me, not going Romeo vs. Tibult. Conan witha knife is far more dangerous than I am with a chain saw. A bright line defense is superior.

Man that last part made me laugh so hard .

I took Judo when I was younger for a number of years, and I know there are many ways to defend yourself (in hand to hand at least) with only a small chance of actually killing someone. I was attacked by a guy who decided to run at me head on for some reason, I rolled my eyes, and grabbed the guy by his knees dropping him instantly to the ground as he ran into me. I was actually worried the guy landed on his neck, even though I tried to angle him onto his shoulders. It was surreal to say the least, people don't understand how fragile they actually are on the surface and your neck is about the most damageable area in your whole body.

For an average person who has not trained in Martial arts you can expect a lot more messiness, pretty much ending in a bar fight style perseverance match. The MAIN problem with that is the surrounding area, things like pool tables, chairs, windows and the like. All of these things are technically weapons, and they are no less dangerous than a club or a bat, it just works that way. If you fall onto something accidentally (a bar fight flying across the whole bar? Can you imagine? ) you do stand a chance of being severely hurt or even killed if you are unlucky. People fall in their shower and break their neck on a relatively constant basis to the number of people that take showers at all.

"Note"
I remember hearing from my U.K. family that stabbings had become prominent recently (mid 2008 or so) and that may be part of the reason they are taking this so seriously.

Here is a recording of what the police response should have been:

**EDIT**
I had Danny's FlipBook Shooting from Hot Fuzz here, but for some reason its so unstable on dakka it will hardly run. So Its removed.

My two cents:
If you make the mistake of entering my house without my consent, and you then make an even bigger mistake of being armed and trying to steal from me, Unless you get really lucky your not going to make it very far before several rounds vent your chest/head no questions asked.

jp400 wrote:

This message approved by:
Battleflag. Sticking a thumb in the eye of oppressors for 170 years




Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT but I shot a Winchester 300 magnum saturday. Now that was some fierce recoil.

Yeah, if you hold it wrong it will blow your thumb off.
(Revolver type right?)

jp400 wrote:Yeah, if you hold it wrong it will blow your thumb off.
(Revolver type right?)

Bolt action rifle. The owner a former Air Force rescue nut, laughed and laughed that it rocked me back two feet. Still have my dream of getting a Fulton .308 when I win the Lotto though.

Here's one (not me I'm way prettier)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcVK8Oo1BjQ&feature=related

Yeah he can laugh, but if his gun has that much recoil then wth is the point? Its not like your going to be able to shoot it all day long without a care in the world..

I mean Hell my .50BMG wont rock you back that far. My Sister shot it and she is maybe 120 Soaking Wet.

Fulton .308 is nice.... but if im going to get something in 7.62 nato im going old school/classic or something based off that:

I'm almost wondering if they took the guy into custody as a way to keep him safe, to be honest.
The cops around here have been doing that for years whenever there's a self-defense case with gang ties involved.
Not only does it keep the police safe from any kind of legal repercussions from the gang members' families(which is far, far too common in civil courts in this day and age) for not taking a 'vigilante' into custody, but it also has the added effect of keeping the victim and their families a lot safer than just reporting the story, filing it away and leaving them alone.

jp400 wrote:Yeah he can laugh, but if his gun has that much recoil then wth is the point? Its not like your going to be able to shoot it all day long without a care in the world..

I mean Hell my .50BMG wont rock you back that far. My Sister shot it and she is maybe 120 Soaking Wet.

Fulton .308 is nice.... but if im going to get something in 7.62 nato im going old school/classic or something based off that:

It doesn't rock...him (bald bear) and its an elk gun/sniper rifle (deer rifle for his purposes).

Yes Springfield was the first pick. Nice SOCOM style there. You can't go wrong with a Springfield. But you have to mess with it to get a decent scope mount and its my understanding cleaning of an AR-10 style is easier.

English law recognises that the state of mind of the potential victim is key to bringing a verdict of guilty or justified self-defence.

If you believe you are in threat of your life you are entitled to defend yourself even if you are not.

sebster wrote:It's a really common idea here in Oz and in the UK. It goes that you can only use as big or dangerous a weapon as the attacker. So if he's got a club you can hit him with a club, but not with a knife. If he has a knife you can use a knife yourself, but not a gun and onwards and upwards.

Of course, it isn't true. What matters is the severity of the force relative to the threat. If a guy threatens to punch you and you shoot him, that ain't cool. Not because of the weapon, but dangerous force being repelled with deadly force. But even that's pretty loose, once you add in the instant you have to decide and the number of unknowns, the courts tend to be very lenient.

That's completely stupid.

In the US we are enlightend and have the castle doctrine, meaning that you have unlimited right to defend yourself within your home - there is nowhere else to go. Even on the Left Coast.

If someone breaks into my home, I'm drawing a line in the sand and planning to kill.

Interesting report this morning about a Harvard professor who got into an argument in his home with a policeman and was arrested.

Obama has also become embroiled, as there are racial undertones. They are all having beer at the Whitehouse to try and sort things out.

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's completely stupid.

Sbuh? I'm talking about law developed over years of rulings and review, that fits well with the culture and values of the society it represents. And you're happy to march in a say that it's completely stupid, because your country has a law about shooting people that are in your house illegally but aren't actually a threat.

Because it's interesting to see how highly subjective matters like this are dealt with in different places around the world. But if the sum total of your review is to say 'them law be stupid' it's probably going to be hard for anyone to learn much.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's completely stupid.

Sbuh? I'm talking about law developed over years of rulings and review, that fits well with the culture and values of the society it represents. And you're happy to march in a say that it's completely stupid, because your country has a law about shooting people that are in your house illegally but aren't actually a threat.

Because it's interesting to see how highly subjective matters like this are dealt with in different places around the world. But if the sum total of your review is to say 'them law be stupid' it's probably going to be hard for anyone to learn much.

Yes its insanely stupid. It assumes a normal person vs. another normal person. Thats nuts and puts you on the same level as the BG. Instead of stopping the attacker the intent is to not escalate the level of harm.

Here's factors and why a bright line is eminently better
*man/woman
*BG on drugs
*BG knows what he's doing
*GG surprise situation
*estreme second guessing by people comfy in their chairs.
*egg shell rule coming into play even for the GG-now thats nuts.

The effect of this is that, it makes you go to trial. Even if innocent you've now paid thousands in legal fees and are potentially ruined. In the US these items usually don't go to trial-they are no billed. Its only when the self defense is twitchy that a trial is involved (or you're on the East Coast-sorry guys you voted for those losers).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Interesting report this morning about a Harvard professor who got into an argument in his home with a policeman and was arrested.

Obama has also become embroiled, as there are racial undertones. They are all having beer at the Whitehouse to try and sort things out.

You're a bit late. Its a big deal and hammered Obama at the worst time for his health care, buy takign the focus off the issue for 2-5 days at a critical juncture.
Ironically his friend pulling Capitain Elitist Bastard and Obama stepping in without, like, knowing the facts, may have sunk healtcare for this year.

In my defence, from the UK perspective it is a minor US domestic story. It probably wouldn't have run if Parliament was still sitting. (Radio 4 morning news is the equivalent of whatever is the most serious and respected news programme in the US. Except a lot better, of course.)

I was interested in the implications re householders defending their property.

Frazzled wrote:*estreme second guessing by people comfy in their chairs.

Hey nobody said I could type. Zombie Shark is my new friend now...

No, in the US, when you say GTFO, they need to GTFO.

er what?

Where I live you can't shoot someone in the back if they are in your house because they don't pose a direct threat.
That's why you miss with the first shot and peg them with the second when they turn around. Either that or whistle.


Although we have a pump action shotgun, we also have an SKS complete with bayonet, so if someone with a knife breaks in I have a knife on a gun which trumps the knife.

It help that our house has a corridor of death built into it. From the entrance to our house we have a T intersection. Going straight=living room, going left=rooms. The hallway to our rooms is narrow so I believe that a shotgun blast can effectively eliminate anything in said hallway. Unfortunately that means shooting the picture of Jesus we have hanging at the end of the hallway.

Frazzled wrote:Yes its insanely stupid. It assumes a normal person vs. another normal person. Thats nuts and puts you on the same level as the BG. Instead of stopping the attacker the intent is to not escalate the level of harm.

You don't understand the law here, and obviously don't know how it works in practice. The key component is a belief that the other person was a deadly threat, and that that belief was reasonable. Note it's not a 'reasonable person would consider', but that the person involved would reasonably consider. And as you'd well know, when the burden of proof is on the court to prove the state of mind of the defendent, it's very hard to do without overwhelming evidence. Our self defence law is very, very lenient.

Meanwhile JohnHwangDD was saying our law is stupid because where he's from you can kill a person in your house even if you aren't in fear of your life. And all I can do is shrug and 'great for you John but I like living in a place where you can only kill someone if you need to defend yourself or others'. Different countries, different laws reflecting the values of those countries. All good.

But jumping in to claim the law is wrong because it doesn't reflect someone from another country's preference for killing... that's dumb.

I am going by what you said Sebbie

It's a really common idea here in Oz and in the UK. It goes that you can only use as big or dangerous a weapon as the attacker. So if he's got a club you can hit him with a club, but not with a knife. If he has a knife you can use a knife yourself, but not a gun and onwards and upwards.

That is an escalating engagement test. If you're saying this is the standard:

The key component is a belief that the other person was a deadly threat, and that that belief was reasonable.

Thats a good bit different and we're actually talking the same thing. In the US, and again this depends on jurisidiction, there is either the defacto or statutory assumption that certain places or events create that belief as a presumption.

In Texas the presumption under statute is that, for many reasons, a criminal in your home is effectively meeting that test.

Oh I see what's going on here, there's been a bit of a miscommunication. Here's the post of mine you quoted in fullwith the more relevant parts included the part you quoted of mine;

"It's a really common idea here in Oz and in the UK. It goes that you can only use as big or dangerous a weapon as the attacker. So if he's got a club you can hit him with a club, but not with a knife. If he has a knife you can use a knife yourself, but not a gun and onwards and upwards.

Of course, it isn't true. What matters is the severity of the force relative to the threat. If a guy threatens to punch you and you shoot him, that ain't cool. Not because of the weapon, but dangerous force being repelled with deadly force. But even that's pretty loose, once you add in the instant you have to decide and the number of unknowns, the courts tend to be very lenient."

Reading it again I think the problem has been that my earlier post wasn't very clear. See, I meant to say that while it is a common idea among the public that you can only use a weapon as deadly as the one wielded by the other person, that isn't part of the law. Just like people believe that if you ask someone if they're a cop and they don't say they are that's entrapment. Just one of those wrong thoughts that won't go away.

All that really does matter in Australia is that if you are in fear for your life or the lives of others and that fear is reasonable for you to believe, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. So I think we're in broad agreement.

In Texas the presumption under statute is that, for many reasons, a criminal in your home is effectively meeting that test.

And what I was saying was that whatever they are, they are Texas reasons, and that's cool. We don't share the same reasons, so don't share the same law.

***All that really does matter in Australia is that if you are in fear for your life or the lives of others and that fear is reasonable for you to believe, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. So I think we're in broad agreement.

Thats REALLY close to the legal definition here, so yep we're in agreement.

It is an interesting contrast with the case of the Japanese exchange student in Louisiana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

I guess you don't understand
"I'm here for the party," is Cajun for:

"My name is Inego Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

One step ahead of you Fraz

It is both disconcerting and twisted that we had the same thought. This is excellent.

But I have TWO chainsaws hahahahah!

bollox to you Mr frazz

man breaks in then man loses hands, it wont happen again

LoL...

I still say my ChainSaw wielding scotsmen trumps the duel saw bear though.....

JD lives!

JP- Chainsaw wielding Scot is always a Tier One competitor in any Texas Chainsaw Massacre 'Ardboyz edition. I'll give you that. Remember boyz, RPCSs (rocket propelled chainsaws) are strictly forbidden. Ok they are the only thing forbidden....