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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Henry wrote:
From Keane[2010]: ‘self-defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.’

The response to somebody committing a crime must be reasonable and proportionate. If it is not proportionate then under UK law the original aggressor has the right to self defence.

See... this is partially why I like where I live. In essence I am "Louis XIV" of my individual house. Ergo, if 'you' are in my house uninvited... off with his head!!!

I strongly disagree with the notion that if I'm dealing with a "polite burglar" I must respond in a "polite" manner approximately equal to the burgling.

Why? I'll lay out a scenario, to help you understand exactly how bloodthirsty this kind of comment sounds:

I am in the UK, in my home. A criminal breaks in to my home and starts stealing things. I, holding an improvised but potentially deadly weapon(lets say, a fire iron), confront the criminal, with one of the following outcomes:

Outcome A: the criminal, upon seeing an angry me holding a big fething metal stick, immediately surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police.

Outcome B: the criminal attempts to flee my home as I chase them out, and I catch up to them as they are almost at my front gate.

Outcome C: the criminal fights me and loses, he surrenders and peacefully awaits the arrival of the police and the ambulance required to treat his serious injuries.

Outcome D: the criminal reacts with total fury and attempts to murder me with a weapon.

Now, when you say you should have the right to "Louis XIV" up the place on anyone who enters your home without permission(and I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you're not actually mental, and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally), what you sound like you're saying is you feel you should have the right to use whatever level of violence you pleased in any of those four scenarios. Now, you might not mean that, you might have a scenario in your head that's a lot like Outcome D, in which case you'd be fine under UK law, but in any of the others you'd be screwed and justifiably so, because allowing people to respond to criminal behaviour with behaviour that would also be criminal in any other circumstances(attacking an unarmed person who poses no threat or chasing down and beating an unarmed person who poses no threat) is borderline vigilantism. Hell, it's exactly vigilantism; the original crime is over, the criminal isn't even threatening property let alone life; the immediacy of their previous actions does not change the fact that they are exactly that - previous.

More than the legal argument though, I'm absolutely baffled by people who believe they should have the right to defend property(as in, the items someone is attempting to steal) with deadly force(assuming there is no extant threat to the life of you or any other inhabitants of the house). I don't care how low an opinion you(*plural, nonspecific) have of petty criminals, believing their life is worth less than your(*plural, nonspecific) iPad is sociopathic. But then we're talking about folk who grew up in a country that still has the death penalty, so I don't know why I'm surprised.

EDIT: As for the whole "assumption of nefarious intent" issue - the problem there is the guns, not the law. If you caught someone trying to pick your locks in the UK you could assume bad intent as well, the difference is giving them a few kicks or belting them over the back with a rake handle isn't going to turn them into hairy jam like a shotgun blast would.

That sort of attitude was the law in Britain for a time. However, that time was the 18th century, and those laws aren't exactly remembered fondly: The Bloody Code.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Now, when you say you should have the right to "Louis XIV" up the place on anyone who enters your home without permission(and I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming you're not actually mental, and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally), what you sound like you're saying is you feel you should have the right to use whatever level of violence you pleased in any of those four scenarios. Now, you might not mean that, you might have a scenario in your head that's a lot like Outcome D, in which case you'd be fine under UK law, but in any of the others you'd be screwed and justifiably so, because allowing people to respond to criminal behaviour with behaviour that would also be criminal in any other circumstances(attacking an unarmed person who poses no threat or chasing down and beating an unarmed person who poses no threat) is borderline vigilantism.

I assume the comment you are responding to was heavily in hyperbole. Each State's laws are different, in Indiana the law is;
http://www.usacarry.com/indiana_stand_your_ground_castle_doctrine_laws.html
IC 35-41-3-2

Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

 Yodhrin wrote:
Hell, it's exactly vigilantism; the original crime is over, the criminal isn't even threatening property let alone life; the immediacy of their previous actions does not change the fact that they are exactly that - previous.

So is the trespassing over too at this point in your scenario?
Also will the homeowner be imbued with mystical powers that let them know that (a) the criminal currently trespassing in their home is not a threat, and (b) that the original crime is in fact over - as contrary to your opinion I'm sure more homeowners may not consider it over, or at least there may be some confusion as to whether it is over, when the criminal is still in your home.

 Yodhrin wrote:
But then we're talking about folk who grew up in a country that still has the death penalty, so I don't know why I'm surprised.

That seems oddly close to Rule 1 by making sweeping generalizations about people just because of the country in which they live. In case you were unaware there are places in the US without the death penalty like Michigan which repealed it in 1847. The death penalty was still on the books in the UK within living memory.
I'm hesitant to ask what your opinion is of those of us who were not born in the US but agree with their Castle Doctrine laws.

 Yodhrin wrote:
EDIT: As for the whole "assumption of nefarious intent" issue - the problem there is the guns, not the law. If you caught someone trying to pick your locks in the UK you could assume bad intent as well, the difference is giving them a few kicks or belting them over the back with a rake handle isn't going to turn them into hairy jam like a shotgun blast would.

So criminals breaking into people's property is not the problem, really guns are the problem....

Potential language warning

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I keep telling my fellow Henley Whalers that we ought to tool up our boat like the Historical Maritime Society (see below) because people tend not to argue with you when you have a 12-lb carronade at hand.

I wonder if you could mount that on a pickup truck. . .

 Yodhrin wrote:
and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),

I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.


Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.

 Frazzled wrote:

I wonder if you could mount that on a pickup truck. . .

They mount gunship missile pods to trucks in Syria, I think you could get a carronade on there.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I wonder if you could mount that on a pickup truck. . .

They mount gunship missile pods to trucks in Syria, I think you could get a carronade on there.

Well hell, now that Frazz has seen that, I'm sure he cant have just one....

"Fire on my mark!! Full broadside!"

I remember an incident involving a Japanese exchange student. He was going to a Halloween party, got lost and went to the wrong house. The householder shot him and was prosecuted, but acquitted, but lost a civil case and had to pay $650,000 damages.

This shows that although the situation of everyone having guns inevitably leads to people getting shot, the law doesn't allow you to get away with it automatically.

Now thats Dakka

Texas already has armed trucks though:

Strangely the plumber who owned that truck is suing ISIL. Love it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.

If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely the plumber who owned that truck is suing ISIL. Love it.

I don't think so. I think he is suing the dealer he traded it into. He was about to scrape off his logo and they told him not to, that they would take care of it. They then did not do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.

If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!

Amazingly great idea. You ought to invest all your money and that of your parents into getting this kicked off. You'll be doing them a favor as you all get to live in luxury once your idea becomes the new norm in common sense gun control measures.

I liked my story better!

 CptJake wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 n0t_u wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.

If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!

Amazingly great idea. You ought to invest all your money and that of your parents into getting this kicked off. You'll be doing them a favor as you all get to live in luxury once your idea becomes the new norm in common sense gun control measures.

Sounds more plausible than any of the bs they've proposed so far.

 n0t_u wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.

If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!

Try to throw a handgun to someone's head with all your strength.

Yep, guns fired by guns kill people.

So let's design rubber guns firing rubber guns.

Oh feth children could choke on them... Damn...

 n0t_u wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.

If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!

I think best we can do is the Sensor Fuzed Weapons....


It's a bomb that drops bombs

How about a bomber that drops bombers?

 LethalShade wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution. Maybe if she'd had a pistol in each hand she would have been more accurate.

If guns don't kill people, but their bullets do... then why not make a gun that shoots guns? That way everyone gets lots of guns and they don't kill people because there's no bullets!

Try to throw a handgun to someone's head with all your strength.

Yep, guns fired by guns kill people.

So let's design rubber guns firing rubber guns.

Oh feth children could choke on them... Damn...

I’m having flashback to an old live action superman bit. The mooks unload pistols at the man of steel, and he stands there, chin up while the bullets bounce off him. Then one of the mooks throws his (ineffective) pistol at our hero, and he ducks. Because it’s obviously more dangerous then the shots it was firing.

 Frazzled wrote:
How about a bomber that drops bombers?

What about a bomber making factory making factory? That would be ubber meta.

"I hate you so much I could drop a factory on you!" Yea I like that, its very 40K.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),

I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.


Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.

But that has happened in the US. A college student was killed in Louisiana when he knocked on someone's door, asking for directions, the homeowner opened the door and shot him.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?

Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).

That was my impression when I was living in Germany in Austria as well. But I found that the vast majority of it was based on a gross misunderstanding of US gun laws. When we actually took the time to have a discussion about it, most of my European friends and colleagues realized that, even if they still didn't prefer it, the situation was really not as outrageous as they initially thought. But I usually just tried to avoid the subject while I was over there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),

I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.


Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.

But that has happened in the US. A college student was killed in Louisiana when he knocked on someone's door, asking for directions, the homeowner opened the door and shot him.

Was the homeowner not charged?

This was the case of the Japanese exchange student that I referred too above.

The killer was charged, acquitted controversially, and later convicted in a civil court and had to pay $650,000 damages.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
and so wouldn't assert you have the right to shoot someone without thought or delay to ascertain the facts simply for straying over the boundary line of your garden/fields accidentally),

I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.


Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.

But that has happened in the US. A college student was killed in Louisiana when he knocked on someone's door, asking for directions, the homeowner opened the door and shot him.

You said happened in the US. Anyone who has been around Louisiana knows that its a completely separate country...from the 50s.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I remember an incident involving a Japanese exchange student. He was going to a Halloween party, got lost and went to the wrong house. The householder shot him and was prosecuted, but acquitted, but lost a civil case and had to pay $650,000 damages.

This shows that although the situation of everyone having guns inevitably leads to people getting shot, the law doesn't allow you to get away with it automatically.

Oh man, that goes way back.

I'm not saying that our society has changed that much in 23-odd years, but in my opinion I think it unlikely the homeowner would be acquitted again today. I'm not saying it's impossible but at least anecdotally there are more recent cases that I think show it's now harder to escape criminal charges in the circumstances in the first case, and rightfully so.

Which of course agrees with the point that you made anyway. Even if a shooting is initially justified it's still possible for your actions subsequent to result in criminal or civil charges, some well deserved.

 feeder wrote:
Who fires on a shoplifter in a parking lot? Madness.

I'm very Pro-gun and this is just stupid. The man and the previous woman should have been arrested not given a misdemeanor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I am not saying if they "accidentally stray into my yard/garden" they're gonna get shot. But if it's 2am and they are inside my living room? I have 2 sleeping kids, whose lives this burglar has just endangered, they have until the sound of a racking slide gets to them to begin exiting my home. What I was saying is that in that proposed situation (where a perp is physically inside the 4 walls of my house), I have the legal right to defend my home and family against them until they reach the end of the property line.


Never in a million years would I advocate a Hatfield-McCoy style "boundary dispute" because it just wouldn't end well for anyone.

I find this 100% ok as a father, gun owner, homeowner. given a choice I would handle an invader I the following fashion.

Have wife dial 911 on cell phone, get my gun, inform him/her to leave. Should he/she decide not to leave and proceed upstairs towards me and my family, open fire and shoot to kill. I don't care if he is armed or unarmed.

To be fair, you probably shouldn't be giving them the time it takes to make sure they're unarmed or not.

So long as you don't then execute them when they're on the ground bleeding or fleeing the house I don't really see a problem.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People were getting into trouble for using excessive force such as shooting an unarmed fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun, or pursuing a burglar down the street, getting them on the ground and beating their brains out with a cricket bat.

But now it's all good.

Wasn't that the Martin case? If I recall not only did he shoot someone in the back as he fled but he had also booby trapped his house, and told anyone who would listen that he planned on killing any intruders.

He also had no license for a shotgun and in fact needed an even higher grade of license than your standard shotgun license as the pump action winchester he used had an ammo capacity greater than two shells.

So he was breaking basically every firearm law we have.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?

Most of us think that the US are a pretty crazy country when it comes to guns, with all the abuses we can think of (Well, most of us know that reality isn't as bad, but won't admit it).

Yep, true. And the reason is not so much the gun laws as the general attitude from tons of US citizen toward guns. Switzerland used to let its citizen bring military assault rifle at home. But Swiss people never, ever had the “cowboy/vigilante” mentality so prevalent in the U.S.
I think it kinds of boil down to how much people in the U.S. distrust their own democratically elected government…