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.

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.

quote:

You are a British subject, I am an American citizen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You are a British subject, I am an American citizen.

Fwiw:

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.

quote:

There is no such thing as a British subject.

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.

quote:

That applied to those born in the UK back in 1949 DC, but thanks for posting it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

the moment they pull a weapon to enforce their thievery it move beyond mere stealing.

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?).

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....

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.

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.