velo90 0 #26 February 18, 2004 Quoteraving nut bag a fruit loop You mean the wheel was turning, but the hamster was dead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #27 February 18, 2004 I think that would be the technical term, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
damion75 0 #28 February 18, 2004 Quote Not a single time did I ever say that the use of deadly force is prohibited when protecting people. I said that it is prohibited when protecting PROPERTY. This means you cannot shoot someone who steals your empty car from a parking lot. If there is a kid in the car, you can fire away! Interestingly enough, in a military situation this is not the case. UK Rules of Engagement (ROE) do not permit the use of lethal force in the defence of property, only personnel (military or otherwise) and only where the target presents an 'immediate threat to life', while US ROE do permit soldiers to shoot to kill in defence of property as well - even if no personnel are involved... I know that this is not the same issue as we are discussing but I thought it was interesting anyway.*************** Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #29 February 18, 2004 QuoteUS ROE do permit soldiers to shoot to kill in defence of property as well - even if no personnel are involved... Just to clarify, I can't speak to UK ROE, but US ROE vary from situation to situation and this is not always the case. For example, the ROE for Bosnia/Kosovo are significantly different than ROE for Iraq/Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I can't and won't expand any more than that. Blues, Nathan edited for grammar (ROE plural)Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 February 18, 2004 QuoteThen check this booby trap wrongful death lawsuit.... Booby traps are different. They are considered illegal because they can kill anyone who comes into their path, indiscriminately, whether it be a criminal, or a small child. What we're talking about, on the other hand, is self defense in your own home, when you are present as the intruder breaks in. In that scenario, you have the cognitive power to discern whether or not the intruder is really a criminal, or some innocent person, and make the appropriate decision accordingly. I do not believe that government should dictate that we can't defend ourselves in our own homes. In those cases, the intruder has already proven that he has no regard for the law, by breaking into the home in the first place. Thus, the homeowner has every right to fear for their life from this intruder. U.S. burglars spend most of their time carefully selecting their target to strike when the occupants are not home. Why? Because they fear being shot. Prison interviews prove this. Thus, only 13% of U.S. burglaries are to occupied homes. In Britain, where there are almost no guns in homes, 56% of all attempted burglaries are to occupied homes. Thus, Brits are far more likely to face a violent confrontation with a young, strong intruder - because the criminals are not deterred by the threat of armed homeowners. Source: Kleck, "Point Blank - Guns & Violence in America". UK data from a 1982 British crime survey by Mayhew. US data from Bureau of Justice Statistics National crime survey for 1985. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 February 18, 2004 Quoteyou wake up and you can hear scuffling around outside. Due to the new law, you pick up your gun and blow the intruder away - after all, you've been burgled four times in the last year. Then you find out it was someone who had been attacked themself and would go to any lengths to seek protection, or was just some homeless guy who saw an open door and wanted to take some food just to survive. Both these situations are far-fetched, I know, but they're entirely possible, so I would oppose this law. You would deny people the right to self-defense based upon far-fetched scenarios, which rarely, if ever, happen. Wonderful! I'm sure everyone appreciates your concern for their well-being. Meanwhile, the real criminals who commit break-ins all the time, will have a field day attacking homeowners, secure in the knowledge that their victims aren't allowed to resist. If you leave your door open, then you shouldn't be shooting people who stroll through your open door. Lock the darned thing. Then you know that if someone breaks through it, they don't belong there. And if they're someone seeking help, you can look outside and determine that for yourself. You can call the police. Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean that you have to automatically shoot first, without investigating. Sheesh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 February 18, 2004 Quoteits just firmly established that lethal force is just far too much for it to be ever considered “reasonable” in the defence of property alone. So let's say you're a woman who lives alone. A man has broken into your house, and he's holding a screwdriver in his hand, which he used to pry open a window. How do you know whether or not he just wants your TV, or your life? Maybe he'll hold the screwdriver to your neck and rape you. Are British citizens just supposed to put their lives in the hands of the criminals, and live or die with whatever decision the criminal wishes to make? Good luck... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 February 18, 2004 QuoteYou mean the wheel was turning, but the hamster was dead? In the case of Tony Martin, he may have been eccentric, but he wasn't a "raving nut". He lived in an isolated house in the country. He sold antiques. His home had been broken into several times previously, and many valuables stolen. He bought dogs for security, and legally owned a shotgun. Then on the fateful night, two men with long criminal histories broke into his home. They had already killed one or more of his dogs outside. They had screwdrivers, which could have been used as weapons. Tony Martin fired his shotgun from the stairs leading to the upper floor where he slept, killing one intruder and wounding the other. Tony Martin was put in jail and remains there. The surviving burgler, has already been released from his sentence. I suppose the Brits would prefer that innocent home owners like Tony Martin be murdered by burglars, rather than have any poor criminals get hurt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #34 February 18, 2004 "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gremlin 0 #35 February 18, 2004 Quote I currently have one of my blokes facing jail for battering his wife. They had a row at about midnight, having been at the neighbours he was outside. When he went to come in the front door she tried to shut it on him. While she knew that he had one arm in plaster after a recent operation she did not realise he had the 2 year old daughter in the other arm. Naturally he shouldered the door away to protect his daughter. He went inside. They shouted at each other for 5 minutes and went to bed. 4 hours later the police arrive and arrest him for battering his wife (due to the bruise marks from when he shouldered open the door) One month later his bail has the condition he does not live at home so he cannot coerce his wife - even though he has been living with her since the "incident". The police are now prosecuting even though his wife is not making any statement and will refuse to go to court against him. Under new legislation he stands a good chance of ending up with a criminal record. This does not even serve the criminal as there has been no crime committed but political correctness has forced the change from innocent until proven guilty to needing to prove you are innocent. No-one wins and a law which was designed to help the abused merely abuses the innocent. I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #36 February 18, 2004 Bottom line, there are stupid laws everywhere."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #37 February 18, 2004 QuoteAre British citizens just supposed to put their lives in the hands of the criminals, and live or die with whatever decision the criminal wishes to make? Nope - the lone woman should shoot the bastard, our law allows her to. Where someone breaks into your home at night this may automatically be treated as a threat to your personal safty. Therefore she is permitted to use lethal force. What is reasonable also depends on who you are. It may be quite reasonable for a delacate young woman to pick up a gun... less so for me at 6'2" and 3' wide. In that case the law may require me to resort to more physical tactics. And trust me - tony martin was not quite all there... enough so for the jury to have their doubts about him... I strongly believe that many other people would have come out of that trial in a different situation. All else aside, no new law came out of the case. The law remains the same now as it has been for decades and I doubt this little radio program will change that. The only thing that this case demnostrates is that the media will make people think something new is happening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #38 February 18, 2004 QuoteJust thought I'd post my opinion, as a Brit. If someone broke into my house and threatened my family, I'd want to neutralise the threat, whatever way I could. If that meant scaring them off, so be it, if it meant fighting them off, with them winding up dead, so be it. But then think - you wake up and you can hear scuffling around outside. Due to the new law, you pick up your gun and blow the intruder away - after all, you've been burgled four times in the last year. Then you find out it was someone who had been attacked themself and would go to any lengths to seek protection, or was just some homeless guy who saw an open door and wanted to take some food just to survive. Both these situations are far-fetched, I know, but they're entirely possible, so I would oppose this law. Besides, if I do need to defend myself or my family, I've got a Japanese sword under my bed (for martial arts - I'm not a complete tosser!) which I'm sure, combined with the sight of me coming downstairs naked, would deter any would be attacker! What good is a sword against a gun, since the only people in the UK that have guns are the bad guys.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #39 February 18, 2004 QuoteAnd trust me - tony martin was not quite all there... enough so for the jury to have their doubts about him... I strongly believe that many other people would have come out of that trial in a different situation. This statement disturbs me. What you are saying is that someone else who wasn't "eccentric", in the exact same circumstances, would have gotten off for justifiable self-defense. It shouldn't matter what someone's personality is, how well they dress, how wealthy they are, what side of the tracks they were born on, or anything else. All that should matter is the factual circumstances. If a wealthy, respected person with a good job had done the same thing and not been jailed for it, then Tony Martin doesn't deserve to go to jail either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 February 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteAre British citizens just supposed to put their lives in the hands of the criminals, and live or die with whatever decision the criminal wishes to make? Nope - the lone woman should shoot the bastard, our law allows her to. Where someone breaks into your home at night this may automatically be treated as a threat to your personal safty. Therefore she is permitted to use lethal force. This contradicts the murder conviction of Tony Martin under discussion. And it's going to be hard even for that lone woman to defend herself with a gun. Handguns were all confiscated, along with all semi-auto long guns. The single shot rifles and shotguns that remain, have to be unloaded and locked up. By the time the poor lone woman got to her gun to defend herself, the intruder will already be on her. QuoteWhat is reasonable also depends on who you are. It may be quite reasonable for a delacate young woman to pick up a gun... less so for me at 6'2" and 3' wide. In that case the law may require me to resort to more physical tactics. That isn't proper. Just because someone is big, doesn't mean that they are good in a hand-to-hand fight with a criminal, who may be younger, tougher and armed with a knife or other weapon. No government has any right putting a law-abiding citizens into jeopardy in that manner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #41 February 19, 2004 QuoteTony Martin was put in jail and remains there. Clearly you don't have your facts straight. I've been living here since 1996, I like it here and feel rather safe actually (and I live in one of London's poorest areas). You are trying to pretend that you know what the Brits want, all I'm reading is another thinly disguised right wing diatribe. Life is too short, lose the tunnel vision. Will Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 February 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd trust me - tony martin was not quite all there... enough so for the jury to have their doubts about him... I strongly believe that many other people would have come out of that trial in a different situation. This statement disturbs me. What you are saying is that someone else who wasn't "eccentric", in the exact same circumstances, would have gotten off for justifiable self-defense. It shouldn't matter what someone's personality is, how well they dress, how wealthy they are, what side of the tracks they were born on, or anything else. All that should matter is the factual circumstances. If a wealthy, respected person with a good job had done the same thing and not been jailed for it, then Tony Martin doesn't deserve to go to jail either. Actually, this statement does not disturb me at all. Let's say some poor fellow of a lesser mental capability honestly fears for his life. There is no doubt in his mind that people are going to immediately cause him great physical harm or death. But, it turns out he was wrong. There is much to say about the reasonableness of the conduct of a person who is "not quite all there." Though his fear may have been honest, it may not have been reasonable. I know not the facts of the case. But, clearly, there was enough about the circumstances and this guy to cast suspicion on his motives and his conduct. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #43 February 19, 2004 Quote someone else who wasn't "eccentric", in the exact same circumstances, would have gotten off for justifiable self-defense Possibly - we will never truly know as we can't examin a jury's decision making process here. Let me be clear though, my statement is not about wealth, side of tracks or the job the accused had. My statement is purely about any psychological problems suffered by the offender. Where we are talking about the taking of someones life, how can that not enter into a juries decision process. Its possible the offender has psychological illness and thats not supposed to enter into the juries decision process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #44 February 19, 2004 Quote This contradicts the murder conviction of Tony Martin under discussion. Yes it does - but thats my point. The Tony Martin case is not nessaserily that great an example of English law. Quote Handguns were all confiscated Yes, it will be more difficult for her to shoot the guy. That doesnt remove her right to should she need to. Besides, I'm sure she could find another useful tool for the job were she to put her mind to it. (When a nutter broke into ex-beatle George Harrison's mansion he and his wife beat the living crap out of him with china lamps and fire pokers - just like a movie. Reading the full law report was quite chilling; they got up to some real medevil shit on this guy). Quote Just because someone is big, doesn't mean that they are good in a hand-to-hand fight No, your right - they're not nessaserily going to be good. The problem is that what matters is was it reasonable for the home owner to act as they did? That is reasonable in ALL the circumstances. So the jury has to look at everything. How big is the homeowner? Are they a martial artist? Are they timid? Do they have a bad leg? Everything has to be looked at and put onto the weighing scales in the appropriate way. When the law looks at someones life being taken they have to do so very seriously. It may be concluded that it was not reasonable for this 18 stone bouncer to shoot a 10 stone burgler. He could have just thumped him and that would have been enough to save his own life. See shooting in this case would be excessive force as there was a less severe action that could have been taken to save his own life. The same court may conclude that it was reasonable for the 8 stone timid woman to shoot him... what else could she do? There was no less sever action that she could take to save her own life. (these are just examples and may not always work out like that - here we looked at only one of many factors the court would have to consider). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #45 February 19, 2004 QuoteThis is a startling idea, especially coming fromt he Brits. We do not have the authority anywhere in the US to defend property with deadly force. And now the Brits want to take that step? Dang. This is shocking. What's shocking is that you're a lawyer, yet you state as "fact" that we don't have that legal right "anywhere in the U.S.," in apparent ignorance of the fact that that IS the way the law is in Texas. (Unless I'm very mistaken, in Texas deadly force can be used in cases like someone's on your driveway trying to steal your car.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #46 February 19, 2004 QuoteConclusion: Wha we have here is a limited set of circumstances where deadly force is authorized. Dude, why do you have to be such a...a... fuckin' lawyer. You stated UNFUCKINGEQUIVOCALLY that there is "nowhere in the US" where deadly force is legally allowed for defense of property. Several people have posted the very fucking text of the law in Texas that PROVES YOU WRONG. So what do you do? You split hairs, parse semantics, and hem and fuckin' haw and do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE BUT ADMIT YOU WERE FUCKING *WRONG*! If you ever wonder why people you meet give you the impression that they fuckin' hate lawyers, know this: It's probably because YOU SEEM TO ALL BE THE VERY EPITOME OF FUCKING DISINGENUOUSNESS AND DUPLICITY. When cornered, you twist shit around. Listen, there are times when the most manly thing you can do is admit error -- and when everyone can see that you're making a pathetic attempt to evade that admission, it makes you look like a pussy. Why not just fuckin' suck it up?? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #47 February 19, 2004 QuoteThat all said, if I saw somebody driving away in my brand new Chevy Truck (fill in the blank, whatever vehicle you want), and I had an arsenal of weapons at my disposal, which I do, I would NOT use deadly force for the sake of a vehicle. I am not willing to kill for the sake of material property. Now, if an innocent life is threatened, completely different story. Having said that, I'm not about to criticize someone that does protect thier property in this manner. This is simply my choice. And, yes, I do know what it's like to have a brand-new (7 months old) truck stolen. It sucks, but I still feel that way. My mind is not made up about this subject, however... If one considers that one has a very finite time to live on earth (and some believe this is all the time we have, period); and some of that time is spent working hard to accumulate the creature comforts that aid in making life pleasant; and every item one works for and purchases represents some amount of the TIME one has in his life; and some criminal decides to STEAL that item, which EQUATES TO THE SPENT PORTION OF YOUR FINITE LIFE; I see a rationale for using force against that thief. If I worked for the $22,400 it cost to buy my car, and someone takes that car (ok, for this example assume no insurance), if I have to let that theft happen because I can't use force to stop the thief, I will have to work for another $22,400 to buy a replacement. That will REQUIRE me to spend another tremendous chunk of my time, redundantly. I should be able to spend that time in leisure, or in other pursuits. The thief, having necessitated my working to replace the car, has stolen my TIME: more valuable than any material object. A better example would be my Sony camcorder, which some piece of shit stole from SoBe back in December: no insurance on that, so if I want it again, I HAVE TO SPEND PART OF MY LIFE TO EARN THE MONEY TO GET A NEW ONE. That's a large part of why I think it should be okay to blast the shit out of thieves. People say, "Oh, well, you can't justify violence in such cases, because camcorders can be replaced." Well, who can reimburse me for parts of my LIFETIME? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #48 February 19, 2004 Dude, seriously. Chill. No need man. Jeffrey be peaceful! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #49 February 19, 2004 I urge you all to read the article posted HERE QuoteQuoteAre British citizens just supposed to put their lives in the hands of the criminals, and live or die with whatever decision the criminal wishes to make? Nope - the lone woman should shoot the bastard, our law allows her to. Where someone breaks into your home at night this may automatically be treated as a threat to your personal safty. Therefore she is permitted to use lethal force. This is really funny, actually. "She should shoot the bastard." WITH WHAT?! Your loathesome idiot lawmakers (rulers) TOOK [I]AWAY[/I] YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS! REMEMBER? I don't know where you get this claim that you're allowed self defense. Everything I've read in the past 11 years says otherwise. England has whittled down the right of self defense to a point of near-nonexistence. I think you're under a woeful misunderstanding of the law under which you're living, particularly for someone who lives there. You think you're better-off than you actually are. Don't you know that you are forbidden from carrying ANYTHING that can feasibly be used as a weapon? I urge you all to read the article posted HERE --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #50 February 19, 2004 Quote I think you're under a woeful misunderstanding of the law under which you're living Check my profile dude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
