Andy9o8 2 #26 January 13, 2010 QuoteSo how many of the "no" votes are real and not just trollery? I don't presume to be clairvoyant; but perhaps some voters were not reacting to the subject of the poll. Just a wild guess, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 January 13, 2010 Quotethe real issue is whether a civilian may use deadly force to prevent such a suspect from fleeing even if (hypothetically) the suspect is unarmed. And that's a thornier issue. aye, that's the rub and in line with my discussion - can the victim legitimately indicate that he remain's "in fear of harm" as a result of the criminal escaping? Then absolutely the victim should be allowed to pursue, maybe he's even obligated to (morally). it's one reason why I have issue with laws that try to restrict self defense only within your own home - one should be able to defend themselves with the proper justification. but not everyone has good judgement in that area so the laws tie everybodies' hands a bit to constrain the nutters it's so completely situational, that a general law is pointless ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 January 13, 2010 Right to pursue - 2 scenarios Criminal runs, clearly scared to death, maybe just a kid on a random break in. Criminal backs out, angry eyes, vows to "come back and mess you up" In both cases, if they get away, you are pretty sure that the cops won't find them and you'll not have a better chance to stop them yourself as right now. Why are these two cases considered the same under law? They are both out of the house and retreating. Case 1? I'm not too concerned. He'll find easier targets - I may or may not be obligated to a moral duty to protect other future victims. Case 2? I'm scared to death for my safety and that of my family. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #29 January 13, 2010 Quote So the real question is ---- how do we separate this line of logic from mere vigilante attitudes that would manifest themselves in the same actions....... I was thinking this exact thing but didn't comment since I have no idea how we could achieve it in practice. What if the police had caught the guys, put them in jail and a few years later when they're released, the father tracks them down and kills them for fear of another attack? The immediacy of the threat seems to be the distinguishing factor between self defence and vigilantism and it appears to me that it's the best we can do. In cases like this one I think that it would make sense to take account of peoples' legitimate fear when considering the degree of their culpability, but it shouldn't get them off the hook completely. I thought that the father in this case did go too far, but I understood why he had done so and would have preferred his sentence to be suspended. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian84 0 #30 January 13, 2010 QuoteBut in this case, the intruder had already left the house and was fleeing. So here, the real issue is whether a civilian may use deadly force to prevent such a suspect from fleeing even if (hypothetically) the suspect is unarmed. I understood that. I was just making a general observation on how I would like to see the law altered here in the UK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 January 13, 2010 that's nicely considered I think that drawing the line in terms of immediacy is a good way to predetermine where it gets subjective immediate/justified - in the house, starting the motion to definitely knife your child's throat not immediate/not justified - "a few years later they are released from prison" so those two lines are easy to draw and likely 99% of the reasonable population would agree (though some here I could see arguing to let the criminal cut the child and then give the criminal a hug and a government check - conversely, I could see a couple people argue to invade the prison and then kill the criminal in a fit of rage.... but we'll ignore that 1%) but those lines are pretty widely spaced...... grey area - running away from the house (in this specific case, I can think of several scenarios where it's justified, and several where it's not - you think the father went too far, I don't have enough details to form a personal opinion yet) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 January 13, 2010 QuoteI thought that the father in this case did go too far, I think it should ALWAYS be ok to run down and restrain the criminal. However, the level of force needed to accomplish that aim is the real question. Depending upon the ability of the pursuer to restrain the criminal vs the amount of resistance the criminal puts up. A huge Father with SEAL training could restrain some punk with little damage to the punk - no matter how hard the punk resists. He should not damage the punk, he has special training in this. however, a 'normal' father with little martial training subduing the same punk might have to hit the kid on the head to restrain him. that would be justified - the father is under no obligation to take damage if he chooses to try and hold a criminal for law enforcement arrival. Cops are under no obligation to go toe to toe, no reason for civilians to either. so if a pursuer atttemps to do the minimum of damage allowed by his ability for the scenario, then any damage the criminal takes is purely the fault of the criminal (that's true with the cops, that's true with the father) Edit: establishing a law that says one cannot pursue no matter what is a travesty, no law can anticipate all scenarios to that restriction. Even in most cases, not restraining or not pursuing is likely the wisest course ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou were saying? You do see the difference between turning a criminal to police (and thus preventing further crime), and calling the police after the criminals already left (so no further crime is prevented)? And as I asked in the other thread and you never answered - how was he supposed to keep him there? Shoot him?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #34 January 13, 2010 QuoteQuoteI thought that the father in this case did go too far, I think it should ALWAYS be ok to run down and restrain the criminal. However, the level of force needed to accomplish that aim is the real question. Depending upon the ability of the pursuer to restrain the criminal vs the amount of resistance the criminal puts up. A huge Father with SEAL training could restrain some punk with little damage to the punk - no matter how hard the punk resists. He should not damage the punk, he has special training in this. however, a 'normal' father with little martial training subduing the same punk might have to hit the kid on the head to restrain him. that would be justified - the father is under no obligation to take damage if he chooses to try and hold a criminal for law enforcement arrival. Cops are under no obligation to go toe to toe, no reason for civilians to either. so if a pursuer atttemps to do the minimum of damage allowed by his ability for the scenario, then any damage the criminal takes is purely the fault of the criminal (that's true with the cops, that's true with the father) Edit: establishing a law that says one cannot pursue no matter what is a travesty, no law can anticipate all scenarios to that restriction. Even in most cases, not restraining or not pursuing is likely the wisest course The problem with this reasoning is that civilians are not cops. Partly training, mostly authority. Pursuing has a lot of risks. Restraining the suspect (he isn't a criminal until he's convicted in court) has more. And in most juridictions, use of deadly force (and a cricket bat to the head is definitely deadly force) can't be used on a fleeing suspect. Even if he has threatened to come back and get you. The immediacy just isn't there. Carry permit classes teach to "stop the attack". As soon as the attack stops, it stops being self-defense. And yes, that means if a guy shoots you, and turns and runs after you pull out a gun, you can't shoot him in the back as he runs away. Realistically, after being shot, you could say that you feared he would turn back toward you and shoot again, but depending on the local officials attitudes, charges could be filed (and have been). It is usually defined as "reasonable". Which varies depending on the local attitudes. Big grey area. It usually ends up as "How would a jury rule"."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #35 January 14, 2010 QuoteAnd as I asked in the other thread and you never answered - how was he supposed to keep him there? Shoot him? Ask JohnRich, he mentioned criminals being arrested by gun carrying individuals. Therefore I assume it should be possible in some way, as other allegedly did that.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnd as I asked in the other thread and you never answered - how was he supposed to keep him there? Shoot him? Ask JohnRich, he mentioned criminals being arrested by gun carrying individuals. Therefore I assume it should be possible in some way, as other allegedly did that. Answer the question.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #37 January 14, 2010 QuoteAnswer the question. This is an answer.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnswer the question. This is an answer evasion. Fixed that for you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #39 January 14, 2010 QuoteFixed that for you. Should have said "This was an answer, but not the one I would like to see, so I pretended to ignore it by claiming it as evasion".* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteFixed that for you. Should have said "This was an answer, but not the one I would like to see, so I pretended to ignore it by claiming it as evasion". Answer the question.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #41 January 14, 2010 QuoteAnswer the question. It has been answered above.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteAnswer the question. It has been answered above. No, it was evaded above - but we'll accept that you won't answer it because you have no clue what you're talking about.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #43 January 14, 2010 Quote No, it was evaded above In your dreams.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #44 January 14, 2010 QuoteAsk JohnRich, he mentioned criminals being arrested by gun carrying individuals. Please point to a message where I've said such a thing. No games, no evasions - just back up your assertion with a hard answer. Show me the post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #45 January 14, 2010 Quote Please point to a message where I've said such a thing. Should I take it as that you never said such thing, and therefore gun owners do not arrest criminals committing crimes?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuote Please point to a message where I've said such a thing. Should I take it as that you never said such thing, and therefore gun owners do not arrest criminals committing crimes? Are you saying that John never said what you claimed he did?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #47 January 14, 2010 QuoteAre you saying that John never said what you claimed he did? I want to hear his answer, and until I hear it, you won't get any.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteAre you saying that John never said what you claimed he did? I want to hear his answer, and until I hear it, you won't get any. You claimed he said something - he told you to prove it. So, prove it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #49 January 14, 2010 QuoteYou claimed he said something - he told you to prove it. And he is the only one who can ask me to prove it. You cannot.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 January 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou claimed he said something - he told you to prove it. And he is the only one who can ask me to prove it. You cannot. Post 44.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
