RE: What are the limits to self defense.

RE: What are the limits to self defense. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eulero83 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Do you realize there are many places on this earth where people knows what "criminal hold on te streat" means just through TV when they watch documentaries on socially deprived areas? Do you theink there are cops at any corner there? To the extent such places exist. Riyadh for example, they are not part of this conversation. I sometimes ask myself if this kind of sentences are due to a deep ignorance or it's just some poeple would feel sad if there was no crime around as to feel they have an important place in the world they would need more effort than owning a gun and dream to be the hero in a western movie.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:14:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Do you realize how difficult it is to catch and convict street criminals? Do you understand how many victims they will have before they are caught. In any society a citizen has a duty to help protect the society, subjects not so much. You fail to realize that I and virtually everyone advocating self defense would be delighted if upon seeing our intent to resist the thugs surrendered and gave us the opportunity to testify against them. There you go with the "subjects" bullshit again. You are a British subject, I am an American citizen. Now you are talking bollocks. There is no such thing as a British subject. Even if there was the notion we would just stand by and let ourselves get robbed is fucking laughable.

dcnovice -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:22:31 PM)
quote: You are a British subject, I am an American citizen. Fwiw: [image]http://www.devco.net/images/citizen.jpg[/image]

slavekate80 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:22:39 PM)
I think it's justifiable to attack someone if they're an imminent threat to your own life or the life of someone who can't defend himself/herself. Also if the risk isn't actual death, but serious, permanent harm, such as gouging your eyes out. There's also a lot of gray area, situations in which you don't know if your life is in danger or not. A purse-snatcher who runs off down the street is not going to kill you. A burglar at 3AM, on the other hand, may be armed and ready to shoot. I personally choose non-violence, which means that anything beyond putting an object (and/or distance) between me and someone else, or protecting my face/head/etc. with my hands and arms, is not allowed. I've done these before. But I understand that's a matter of personal beliefs and wouldn't hold it against someone else if they hurt or killed someone in self-defense or defense of another, intended to save life or prevent grievous bodily harm.

Yachtie -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:25:39 PM)
RE: What are the limits to self defense. The answer is so easy, and it's right here. [:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:29:00 PM)
The Tony Martin case shows clearly how far you can go in self defence here in the UK. Martin owned an isolated farm here in the UK, he had been burgled on pervious occassions. One night he caught two burglars in his main hallway and fired his shotgun at them, so far so good. He then followed them to a small room and aimed at them as they were escaping through a window. One burglar died from his injuries. The jury found Martin guilty of murder because at the point of his second and third shots, the burglars were no longer a threat. He got 9 years originally but this was reduced to manslaughter and a five year prison term, due to an appeal against the original sentance because of depression and extreme paranoia caused by the previous robberies. There have been a few similar cases since this, where the homeowner was found not guily as the burglar was clearly still a threat.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: You are a British subject, I am an American citizen. Fwiw: [image]http://www.devco.net/images/citizen.jpg[/image] That applied to those born in the UK back in 1949 DC, but thanks for posting it.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 Do you realize there are many places on this earth where people knows what "criminal hold on te streat" means just through TV when they watch documentaries on socially deprived areas? Do you theink there are cops at any corner there? To the extent such places exist. Riyadh for example, they are not part of this conversation. I sometimes ask myself if this kind of sentences are due to a deep ignorance or it's just some poeple would feel sad if there was no crime around as to feel they have an important place in the world they would need more effort than owning a gun and dream to be the hero in a western movie. And you would be totally wrong. If there is nothing to defend yourself against then the subject of self defense is not relevant is it.

PeonForHer -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:34:42 PM)
quote: There is no such thing as a British subject. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, PS. Here, the UK Border Agency talks about the requirements for being 'a British subject', for instance.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Tony Martin case shows clearly how far you can go in self defence here in the UK. Martin owned an isolated farm here in the UK, he had been burgled on pervious occassions. One night he caught two burglars in his main hallway and fired his shotgun at them, so far so good. He then followed them to a small room and aimed at them as they were escaping through a window. One burglar died from his injuries. The jury found Martin guilty of murder because at the point of his second and third shots, the burglars were no longer a threat. He got 9 years originally but this was reduced to manslaughter and a five year prison term, due to an appeal against the original sentance because of depression and extreme paranoia caused by the previous robberies. There have been a few similar cases since this, where the homeowner was found not guily as the burglar was clearly still a threat. On one occasion I could not get to a weapon until they had their backs to me, I did not fire for this very reason.

dcnovice -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:40:53 PM)
quote: That applied to those born in the UK back in 1949 DC, but thanks for posting it. They may still be using it. I got the pic from the website of someone who was naturalised in 2008, and he said that's the certificate they gave him. What struck me was its being an official document that clearly referred to a new Briton as a citizen rather than a subject.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: There is no such thing as a British subject. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, PS. Here, the UK Border Agency talks about the requirements for being 'a British subject', for instance. Different rules for those wishing to stay in the UK though Peon. Click the section in your link about British Citizens.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 I think it's justifiable to attack someone if they're an imminent threat to your own life or the life of someone who can't defend himself/herself. Also if the risk isn't actual death, but serious, permanent harm, such as gouging your eyes out. There's also a lot of gray area, situations in which you don't know if your life is in danger or not. A purse-snatcher who runs off down the street is not going to kill you. A burglar at 3AM, on the other hand, may be armed and ready to shoot. I personally choose non-violence, which means that anything beyond putting an object (and/or distance) between me and someone else, or protecting my face/head/etc. with my hands and arms, is not allowed. I've done these before. But I understand that's a matter of personal beliefs and wouldn't hold it against someone else if they hurt or killed someone in self-defense or defense of another, intended to save life or prevent grievous bodily harm. The difference between you and some others is that you see it as a personal choice. I can respect your choice as long as you can respect mine.

Politesub53 -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Tony Martin case shows clearly how far you can go in self defence here in the UK. Martin owned an isolated farm here in the UK, he had been burgled on pervious occassions. One night he caught two burglars in his main hallway and fired his shotgun at them, so far so good. He then followed them to a small room and aimed at them as they were escaping through a window. One burglar died from his injuries. The jury found Martin guilty of murder because at the point of his second and third shots, the burglars were no longer a threat. He got 9 years originally but this was reduced to manslaughter and a five year prison term, due to an appeal against the original sentance because of depression and extreme paranoia caused by the previous robberies. There have been a few similar cases since this, where the homeowner was found not guily as the burglar was clearly still a threat. On one occasion I could not get to a weapon until they had their backs to me, I did not fire for this very reason. And thats as it should be, in my opinion. If you are in your home or in the street you have the right to do whatever you need to feel safe. UK Law states you must be able to show self defense as a cause.

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Tony Martin case shows clearly how far you can go in self defence here in the UK. Martin owned an isolated farm here in the UK, he had been burgled on pervious occassions. One night he caught two burglars in his main hallway and fired his shotgun at them, so far so good. He then followed them to a small room and aimed at them as they were escaping through a window. One burglar died from his injuries. The jury found Martin guilty of murder because at the point of his second and third shots, the burglars were no longer a threat. He got 9 years originally but this was reduced to manslaughter and a five year prison term, due to an appeal against the original sentance because of depression and extreme paranoia caused by the previous robberies. There have been a few similar cases since this, where the homeowner was found not guily as the burglar was clearly still a threat. On one occasion I could not get to a weapon until they had their backs to me, I did not fire for this very reason. And thats as it should be, in my opinion. If you are in your home or in the street you have the right to do whatever you need to feel safe. UK Law states you must be able to show self defense as a cause. Here the state has to prove it was not self defense.

truckinslave -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 5:57:14 PM)
quote: the moment they pull a weapon to enforce their thievery it move beyond mere stealing. Well of course it does. Not sure of the relevance of what preceded the above, unless you're just saying people get angry when it's personal (and that gives them the right to use deadly force?).

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 6:19:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: the moment they pull a weapon to enforce their thievery it move beyond mere stealing. Well of course it does. Not sure of the relevance of what preceded the above, unless you're just saying people get angry when it's personal (and that gives them the right to use deadly force?). The relevance is that when they pull a weapon they have moved on to assault and possibly attempted murder and that gives them the right to use deadly force.

EdBowie -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 6:45:32 PM)
How does pulling out a knife and demanding money, limit someone to only being a thief, instead of a thief who then kill or rapes, etc.? It isn't the use of the deadly weapon by the criminal that the law requires before self defense can be applied, it is the brandishing. The legal presumption of intent to harm is built in. The posts here that suggest that a victim must wait until they are actually stabbed, or punched, etc. before they can use force more like a Chuck Norris movie than real life. quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave In fact, in WV (and I think most other places), "civilians" and cops have exactly the same legal access to lethal force save in the case of a fleeing felon the cop believes represents an immediate threat to the public that cannot otherwise be stopped. My point, of course, is that almost no otherwise sane person wants to give cops the right to shoot fleeing purse snatchers, but many supposedly sane people herein profess their own willingness and/or right to shoot those who steal from them. Thievery does not and should not carry the death penalty. As an aside, I'm willing to bet that some of those who say they would shoot a person stealing their car, or burglarizing their car, have argued against the death penalty. It's bizarro world....

BamaD -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 8:27:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Do you realize how difficult it is to catch and convict street criminals? Do you understand how many victims they will have before they are caught. In any society a citizen has a duty to help protect the society, subjects not so much. You fail to realize that I and virtually everyone advocating self defense would be delighted if upon seeing our intent to resist the thugs surrendered and gave us the opportunity to testify against them. There you go with the "subjects" bullshit again. You are a British subject, I am an American citizen. Now you are talking bollocks. There is no such thing as a British subject. Even if there was the notion we would just stand by and let ourselves get robbed is fucking laughable. exactly what a subject would say I said that a subject has less of an obligation I never said they wouldn't defend themselves And I have found a couple of sites that say there is such a thing as a British subject. Even a person (Peonforher) who lives in the UK says there is such a thing.

graceadieu -> RE: What are the limits to self defense. (9/30/2013 8:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: So in your first example, would you suggest that people should be legally required to turn their back and run, or try to retreat while backpedalling 'if possible', before they are allowed to apply any sort of defensive force against the person with the knife? If the only choice I had was kill the boy or give him my wallet I would, and you should, give the wallet...It is not worth a life nor is that situation justification for deadly force. Now if you give him the wallet and he then tries to stab you anyway then yes you would be justified...But killing for THINGS should never be the first choice. Butch How moral is this. !4 year old pulls a knife on you and you explain to him that while what he is doing isn't real nice anyone trying to stop him is doing something far worse. His right to rob and terrorize people far outweighs any right they have to defend themselves. You have taught him that what ever he does is ok and anyone who fights back is wrong. He pulls a knife on me and finds himself either staring down the muzzle of a .45 or with my sword can at his throat even if he manages to run away (I wouldn't shoot him in the back) he will never wear those underwear again and might well reform. Or he sees you going for your gun and he stabs you with your hand in your jacket. Or, now that you've escalated the situation even further, he's desperate and cuts you even though you've got the gun. Before, he most likely would've walked away with your wallet and you would be unharmed. Now, one/both of you is going to be in the hospital or morgue. That doesn't sound like a better resolution.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625