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.

 dogma wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:

John Locke wrote:
This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

To ape everyone who has ever read Locke: "If he hasn't hurt you, what makes him a thief?"

Regardless, if you want to push Locke I can make him endorse pacifism and socialism; most notably regarding what he supposes should not be reasonably supposed.

The use of force does not necessarily entail harm, but this probably isn't the place to get into an argument about what Locke wrote or meant, which realistically can be just about anything depending on where you're standing.

 dogma wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:

And here I was thinking that I wrote: "If this case follows the trend, he will face prosecution" which implies probability.

No, it doesn't. Conditionals are not based on probability. That is, however, a common mistake.

You're nitpicking. As you're so fond of saying, this is not an academic journal. The statement is essentially the same as writing "in previous cases all the gun owners were prosecuted, therefore it is probable that this gun owner will be prosecuted as well."

My brother has an interesting "robber trying to punish good people" story.

Quite a few years ago in Germany he was walking around town when he heard a woman scream something about her purse. He saw her running after a guy on a bike who was holding a purse, and the guy was driving towards him. My brother grabbed a hold of his arm as he was driving past and at the same time a postal worker decided to push his cart in front of his bike. Between the two actions he fell of his bike and hit the ground pretty bad, breaking his arm in the process. They were able to keep him on the ground while waiting on the cops and ambulance.

Robber guy tried to sue my brother for the broken arm and he had to go to court. After listening to the case the judge decided that:

1) It was impossible to determine if the postal cart or my brother caused the injury, and

2) Having pissed off people throw you off your bike and breaking your arm was an occupational hazard of robbing people, so no money for you.

Mention before. There's degrees of "Force Escalation" and the justification of "Lethal Force". I will give one verbal warning. Then its up to the intruder. Bear in mind. Its dark and I've no idea whats in his hand

Palindrome wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And there we go, blaming the victim again... if the robbers would have stayed off the property, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Since the robbers instigated the event, they should bear the whole of the blame.

Under UK law you are only allowed to use lethal force in the defence of human life. I see nothing here that suggests that these robbers were posing an imminent threat to life and as such the arrest and possible prosecution are completely justifed.

If someone enters my home, armed, in the middle of the night, as a reasonable person I can assume they have equally likely broken into my home as assassins as they have as robbers. Lethal force immediately becomes justifiable.

If they enter armed, and you know they're armed, maybe. Assassination is pretty rare, compared to robbery.

When and how are you going to confirm that they're armed, before opening fire?

That being said, I tend to think people should be entitled to err on the side of caution when it comes to construing unwanted entry into their homes at night as a threat to their safety. Of course, on a larger property like a farm, it becomes tougher to argue that there's a real chance of threat to you or your family if they don't try to enter the house.

Mannahnin wrote:If they enter armed, and you know they're armed, maybe. Assassination is pretty rare, compared to robbery.

When and how are you going to confirm that they're armed, before opening fire?

That being said, I tend to think people should be entitled to err on the side of caution when it comes to construing unwanted entry into their homes at night as a threat to their safety. Of course, on a larger property like a farm, it becomes tougher to argue that there's a real chance of threat to you or your family if they don't try to enter the house.

Would a reasonable person believe they might be armed? I would say so.
Operating with the knowledge that an intruder may be armed, allows one to surmise the rest. Rarity is not really part of the equation.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Would a reasonable person believe they might be armed? I would say so.
Operating with the knowledge that an intruder may be armed, allows one to surmise the rest. Rarity is not really part of the equation.

In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed. Anyway its up to the CPS to decide if it was a reasonable assumption or not.

Palindrome wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Would a reasonable person believe they might be armed? I would say so.
Operating with the knowledge that an intruder may be armed, allows one to surmise the rest. Rarity is not really part of the equation.

In this country its not that likely for burglars to be armed. Anyway its up to the CPS to decide if it was a reasonable assumption or not.

Not with a gun anyway...

 purplefood wrote:

Not with a gun anyway...

Not with anything. I certainly won't expect a burglar to be armed.

Palindrome wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Not with a gun anyway...

Not with anything. I certainly won't expect a burglar to be armed.

Why not?

If anyone is in my house... they'll eat lead.

Just saying...

Palindrome wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Not with a gun anyway...

Not with anything. I certainly won't expect a burglar to be armed.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a knife.
Though it would depend where about in Britain...

Anything in hand can be a weapon. Most burglers have at least a knife on them. All it takes is for the burgler to move at you.

 deathholydeath wrote:

You're nitpicking. As you're so fond of saying, this is not an academic journal. The statement is essentially the same as writing "in previous cases all the gun owners were prosecuted, therefore it is probable that this gun owner will be prosecuted as well."

If we're at the point where academic journals are the only place in which conceptual propriety is considered laudable, then we've got issues. What you originally said did not "...essentially mean the same thing..." It meant that you used the concepts of implication and probability incorrectly.

Thing that I find odd, is that the idea that I should do nothing to protect myself, my family or my property is so fethed up...

The only way you'd get me to do nothing while my place was burglarized was if I had live in cops ready and waiting to deal with the situation... and seeing as how that aint happening, I'll keep on with my current means and plans.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:
And people say America is fethed up.

Yeah, but the telegraph list 4 events like this happening since the first in 1990. How many like this have happened in America? Even factoring in its larger population, it's hard to say that this balances it out.

I just think it's mind-blowing that the country that gave birth to John Locke has essentially made it illegal for people to defend against home invasions with lethal force.

Lethal force is almost never needed though, and why kill when a shot to the leg will have the same short-term results e.g. putting you out of danger.

Try it some time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.

Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.

Why????


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
And there we go, blaming the victim again... if the robbers would have stayed off the property, they wouldn't have gotten shot. Since the robbers instigated the event, they should bear the whole of the blame.

Under UK law you are only allowed to use lethal force in the defence of human life. I see nothing here that suggests that these robbers were posing an imminent threat to life and as such the arrest and possible prosecution are completely justifed.

If someone enters my home, armed, in the middle of the night, as a reasonable person I can assume they have equally likely broken into my home as assassins as they have as robbers. Lethal force immediately becomes justifiable.

You just described whats called the castle doctrine. Excellent.

 Jihadin wrote:
Anything in hand can be a weapon. Most burglers have at least a knife on them. All it takes is for the burgler to move at you.

It worked for the 8 cops in mich? (don't care enough to look that one up again) who shot a guy 40 times because he had a knife and took a step towards them.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 p_gray99 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.

Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.

No firearms trainer ever trains anyone to shoot for limbs. If you're going to use a firearm on a person, you always (professional snipers aside) aim center of body mass, both to maximize the chance of hitting, and minimize the chance of the bullet missing and striking other people or things behind the target. If you have decided to use a gun, you are already employing lethal force. Trying to shoot an arm or a leg is something from old cowboy movies.

Exactly that and what Azazel said about a wounded person still able to do damage. Many people have been killed by those they assumed were out of a fight because of wounds.

Refering to the one in Time Sqaure New York? We already had a thread about NYPD Lynch

This is in your home. Lights out. If the intruder moves towards me then I'm not going to wait to see or feel whats in his hand. I would much perfer he go out the door or window he came in. I'm sure to the intruder the chambering of a round into my M4 going to sound like chambering a round into a shotgun. I know I can drop the intruder with one round.

edit
Also I don't hold back when jamming a barrel in someone chest like I have a bayonet on the end. I won't over do it. What I won't do is empty a mag or continue to beat the intruder within the inch of his life. There's a fine line between self defense and physical assualt.

 Jihadin wrote:
Refering to the one in Time Sqaure New York? We already had a thread about NYPD Lynch

This is in your home. Lights out. If the intruder moves towards me then I'm not going to wait to see or feel whats in his hand. I would much perfer he go out the door or window he came in. I'm sure to the intruder the chambering of a round into my M4 going to sound like chambering a round into a shotgun. I know I can drop the intruder with one round.

nah it was before new york, 8 cops gunned down a knife wielding suspect, I think I mentioned it in that thread. But they hit the guy 40 out of 46 times, much better shooting then the NYPD.

 dogma wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:

You're nitpicking. As you're so fond of saying, this is not an academic journal. The statement is essentially the same as writing "in previous cases all the gun owners were prosecuted, therefore it is probable that this gun owner will be prosecuted as well."

If we're at the point where academic journals are the only place in which conceptual propriety is considered laudable, then we've got issues. What you originally said did not "...essentially mean the same thing..." It meant that you used the concepts of implication and probability incorrectly.

In a technical sense, you are correct, it doesn't mean the same thing. But, in essence-- the intended meaning-- yes, it does. My point about the academic journal being that I'm not going to take the time to crystallize inane arguments into the form a of formal proof in a thread where my original intention was simply to poke fun at some of the UK dakkanauts.
But really, no-one cares and this argument has nothing to with the thread topic.

Moving on,

With regard to the OP, it's my personal opinion that the inhabitants of homes being burglarized, invaded, vandalized, and so on, have the right employ lethal force. One can't be 100% that the invaders don't intend bodily harm. That being said, if the invaders have been put into a state of non-combativeness (i.e. beaten into submission, critically wounded, or otherwise incapacitated) further use of force on the part of the home owner would fall into the assault category.

 p_gray99 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I would love to see all those "why shoot to kill" folks try to hit a leg from 20 feet away with one shot.

Fair enough, however it's always better to aim for the leg rather than to kill, accidentally killing someone isn't murder.

No it's not.

It's better to go for center of mass to reduce the risk of missing, as a bullet which misses its target doesn't suddenly stop-- it can and WILL hit something, or someone, else.

 deathholydeath wrote:

But, in essence-- the intended meaning-- yes, it does.

Yeah, in "essence". Totally defensible.

 deathholydeath wrote:

My point about the academic journal being that I'm not going to take the time to crystallize inane arguments into the form a of formal proof in a thread where my original intention was simply to poke fun at some of the UK dakkanauts.

And my point is that it shouldn't take any more time than engaging with people otherwise would.

Also, I hope you're trolling.

 deathholydeath wrote:

But really, no-one cares and this argument has nothing to with the thread topic.

You cared enough to respond several times.

 deathholydeath wrote:

That being said, if the invaders have been put into a state of non-combativeness (i.e. beaten into submission, critically wounded, or otherwise incapacitated) further use of force on the part of the home owner would fall into the assault category.

You mean battery.

 dogma wrote:


You mean battery.

I thought battery fell under common assault in the U.K.? If not, then yes, battery.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Thing that I find odd, is that the idea that I should do nothing to protect myself, my family or my property is so fethed up... .

Who has said that? Self defense does not mean that you need to use lethal force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

If anyone is in my house... they'll eat lead.

The only lead in the house is some fishing weights and forcing a burglar to eat them would not look good in court.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Thing that I find odd, is that the idea that I should do nothing to protect myself, my family or my property is so fethed up...

I've always assumed it was just a holdover in the attitudes and cultural zeitgeist from the days when the lords owned everything, and the serfs were merely subsistence farmers renting land; thus leaving said serfs with no property or personal rights.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Anything in hand can be a weapon. Most burglers have at least a knife on them. All it takes is for the burgler to move at you.

It worked for the 8 cops in mich? (don't care enough to look that one up again) who shot a guy 40 times because he had a knife and took a step towards them.

40 seems like overkill, but I would consider the cops justified in turning the guy's head into a canoe in that situation. It's not difficult to deliver a potentially lethal single strike with a knife, and if you know what you're doing then about 6 feet away is not an unreasonable striking distance. (though I'd rather see less-lethal options like a Taser used in that situation.)

46 shots is low, that means that each cop fired on average less then 8 rounds, so less then the size of their magazine, and with a 87% hit rate to boot. I would say that those cops exercised excellent fire control

It never fails to amaze me how people are willing to completely ignore the facts of a case in order to pretend they're being picked on for being manly men who want to shoot people coming into their homes.

When a shooting happens the shooter is arrested. It's the only sensible thing to do until a police investigation has established the act was in self defence. "Okay, you say its in self defence so you're free to go, but just promise you'll stay at home in case we have to arrest your for murder."

And in both cases mentioned - Martin and Hussain - the home invader was fleeing the scene when killed. Despite that Martin got five years, and Hussain got a one year suspended sentence.

And yet people still complain. Because they'd rather be outraged than be right.

Exactly you really can't make a self defense claim without actually being arrested

If he shot them when they were running away then that isn't acceptable. But if they were in his house, and there were four of them, then it's very reasonable to assume his life was at risk.

I agree. If someone is in my house at night I don't know what their intentions are, I am not going to take a chance. They are the ones choosing to break in to my home.
The Norfolk farmer was prosecuted due to the burglar being shot while trying to escape.
The Hussein guy basically continued to have the feth beaten out of the guy. Which I think is reasonable since the b@$tard had tied up his family.