You and the right to defend your property.

Simlife · Post by **Simlife** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:05 pm

In the UK now their is a public out cry in the way law is dealing with people who "defend their property" with force.

The law states that reasonable force can be used to tackle an intruder if you see them in your home or land, also the police say that if the intruder is seen leaving the property, to leave him alone and call them. Thats it. So what is reasonable force?

Could you do that two maybe three times a month for years, watching the hard work and money you put into your home and it's property just be "given" away to criminals.

No?

Many people in the UK think so too.

A farmer called Tony Martin shot at two intruders four years ago with a pump action shotgun, everyone know that all guns in the UK are banned except very old ones (were talking muskets here) and shotguns. To own a gun you need a good reason like owning land with shooting rights or untill more recently, be a member of a gun club but the pump action was an illegal weapon to own. Why did he have it? Because he had had enough.

He managed to hit the two fleeing intruders, he hit one in the knee and one in the back. It turned out to be a 16 year old boy he had hit in the back and who sadly later died.
This was unfortunate for all parties involved and Tony was arrested, charged and sentenced for life in prison for murder but the other intruder was charged later for heroin dealing and was sentenced for a two year imprisonment which he even tried to sue over lost earning from his shot knee.

The problem here is that this man was burgled almost constantaly and who the police could do little to help or stop the crimes. Taking the law in his own hands was more than a cry for help and what option did he have? Leave the door unlocked so they didn't have to break the windows? Because of the crime they could not even find a buyer for their house when they had tried to move.

This is an issue this govenment should seriously look at as there are rising incidents of people who lash out back at intruders because of poor help given by the govemnment to the police forces which is then passed on to the public.

Although I don't agree with killing intruders I would gladly make one reconsider robbing my home. But I would like the police to handle it rather than me.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030729/80/e545n.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030728/140/e51to.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030729/140/e545b.html

I don't know how long the links will be linked to the story but I find this subject gets me mad.

Why should we be cattle for people to pray on?

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Yes. This crap pisses me off to NO END. There was a similar incident here( New York), where a father shot ( didn't kill ) a man who broke into his house and was near his baby in the baby's room, and the assailant had was they called "a rap sheet a mile long". Yet, and I swear I laugh out of the ridiculousess, they are concentrating on trying the man who PROTECTED HIS CHILD from a home evasion. ARE THEY FUCKING GOD DAMN KIDDING ME!!! I absolutely quiver with anger and helplessness when you think you're at the mercy of absolutely ridculous and unjust laws. Law isn't fucking black and white, as it shouldn't, yet here we are where the law may state X, Y and Z, yet there isn't a fucking person in the WORLD that wouldn't say "laws be damned, get the fuck away from my child...BOOM". This righteous hipocritcal bullshit both angers and frightens me, where a seemingly just and defensible action can turn around and ugly right at you and ruin your life. I can't belive how many criminals are getting away with ruining peoples lives beyond the crime they were committing. Wasn't it just recently that a criminal, trying to break into some place, either fell and got hurt, or electrocuted ( not killed ) and was able to SUE FOR DAMAGES! OMG HE WAS FUCKING BREAKING YOUR PRECIOUS LAWS YOU FUCKS. This is all thanks to your bleeding heart fucking liberals and the ACLU for this crap.

Same for the fucking saftey commission for hijacking fuel saving speed limit laws in the 70's, but I digress. I hate people I tells ya.

Cheers

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:54 pm

Christ, another thread of gun nuts promoting getting A FUCKING CANNON IN EVERY ROOM SO WE CAN BL0W EACH OTHERS AND COMMIE... snip OFF BOOM HAHA LOL.

If you're asking me how much force should civilian be able to use when protecting his property and/or life, I'd say beat as much as you can as long as you don't kill or cause permaent injuries. Baseball bat ought to do it well. But if the intruder has a gun? Well, the father that started the shoot out in the room where his baby was sleeping, should've thought that first. Maybe he'd miss and they'd both start shooting, wee, your kiddie got three new holes in 'erself.

If one thinks that killing solves anything, they should take a bullet in their own head. THAT would certainly solve EVERYTHING.

Jimmyjay86 · Post by **Jimmyjay86** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 2:59 pm

I agree that killing thieves should be illegal. Some can't help it or make stupid one-time decisions. That said, I still think you should be allowed to render them unconscious, tie them up, drive them several hundred miles away and leave them naked in a farmfield somewhere.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:07 pm

It looked fine 'till the last part, JayJay

But seriously, tieing a thief up should be allowed. Of course knocking him out is kind of tricky already... If you swing too lightly, he or she will just get mad but if you swing to hard... Well, let's just say that you'll be needing new wallpapers.

Simlife · Post by **Simlife** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:30 pm

I'm not trying to give the impression of killing intruders as good.
Murder is still murder.

But what I want the government to do is make the very very thin and transparent line from "have ago hero" or "vigilante" more detailed. This would go towards protecting the victims rights as they are ordinary working people who are treated like murders or thugs for their actions.

It is this that is not right.

How would you feel if you were sued by a career criminal who broke his leg because he was carrying your TV down the stairs of your house he was robbing? It happens.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:39 pm

Sorry...you guys are idealistic. Since the intentions of a home evasion are never known, lethal force in situations that don't involve illegal gun ownership is encouraged my law enforcement. Its one thing to say "hey, I'm righteous and I wouldn't murder a thief", and a COMPLETELY other story when you think your life is in danger because the thief thinks you're a threat to his saftey and/or the supposed 'thief' is going after your kid or wife or girlfriend. Please, don't feed me that righteous line of crap. Place yourself in the shoes of a victim, have your life in someones hands who DOES NOT belong in your house in the first place, then talk to me. Someone said 'stupidity'...thats a fucking excuse....anyone knows that going into someone ELSES property is illegal or maybe much more simply put, not your right to do.

Cheers

Simlife · Post by **Simlife** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:49 pm

I personaly agree with EvoG.

Being a good citizen is diffrent from being a good person.

I would like to see law that protect the average citizen more and tells the criminal what they can expect should they try to gain illegal entry in homes.
As I said the UK is very blured on this matter.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:08 pm

bah the uk laws are shitty. You could probably get arrested if someone walked into your home and you tried to stop him. If some dude was standing over my baby after breaking into my home, I wouldn't politely ask him to leave either.

What would you do then kashluk if 3 dudes were raping your family and taking your stuff, cry and ring the police?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:33 pm

Of course I would go and get my .338 rifle and hold them off till someone calls the cops. But I wouldn't do like you guys and blast everyone, including my family, to pieces with me' cannon :roll:

You just don't seem to get it. Violence is violence, but even you can't be so stupid that you can't see the difference between a well-placed shot between a burglar's eyes and well-placed swing to the knee caps with a baseball bat.

Your example situations are so fucking far fetched. So extreme. In most of the cases SCARING is enough. If a gun, knife or another kind of weapon exists it's already enough to hold any ordinary criminal 'till your wife/kid/girlfriend calls the police. No need to start chopping him to pieces and fry his liver on a pan! How about megatron if three mega-ninjas in power armor invaded your house and all you had was a silver fork? Huh??!?!!!1 What would you do then???

In Finland the letter of law has been simplified in this matter - killing is NEVER allowed, even if protecting your property. But using force instead can be totally ignored if the harm the criminal had / would've most likely done was greater.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:36 pm

To me, reasonable force is a double-tap to the back of the head.

Simlife · Post by **Simlife** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:50 pm

Hurrah, the British government finally shows some back bone.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030729/143/e54sb.html

I would never condone killing a criminal that is in your home. This is fundamentally wrong on all sorts of levels.

I think that if you did kill a intruder in your home it should be manslaughter and no two ways, but it would also mean to the criminal that things get risker if they did try to attempt a break in, which would in turn deter people.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:59 pm

Yup. But I'm totally for letting people get away with it if they protect their property or family with "reasonable violence". And again, with it I mean violence that doesn't kill or leave permanent injuries. But kill someone and pay the price, there should be no way around it.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:24 pm

yar i think thats fair.

and you can still shoot someone in the knee, while a baseball bat to the forehead could kill someone EH!?!

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:27 pm

True. And hey, if you don't know how to handle a gun you shouldn't own one, right?

And in case if the criminal gets permanent injuries, even then the victim shouldn't be directly *punished*. Instead, the verdict should be lighter. If the burglar can't walk without a cane for the rest of his life, because you banged his knee wiht a pistol or a bbb, he could sit less time in jail, because the chances he'll be "an efficient public enemy" in the future with one leg are quite slim.

Simlife · Post by **Simlife** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:31 pm

Whew, now thats all sorted for a while anyways.

And now some thoughts from our sponsors...
http://www.allthingswilliam.com/fairness.html

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:36 pm

Uh, what do you mean? DAC isn't like the parliament or anything, we can't really sort anything out

Simlife · Post by **Simlife** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:47 pm

No the fact blunket finaly pulled his thumb out of his ass as took a step forward to defend homeowners. It realy was getting annoying.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:49 pm

Oh, right... I knew that... I think. Argh, stupid me!

Someone hit me with a baseball bat! But not in the face, and gently if you please.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:03 pm

FYI, the guy that plugged the creep in his son's room is out of jail now. Ended up getting convicted of some misdemeanor and the sentence was time already served. The DA took a lot of national heat over that case.

As for the Martin case, his sentence ended up being reduced to 5 years, and as you see in that link he's out now. However, that case wasn't quite like the New York case. In the New York case, the guy didn't want to kill the intruder; I believe he administered some kind of first aid until an ambulance arrived. However, Martin was hardcore strange and not in a harmless kind of way. I don't mourn the loss that either of the creeps he shot suffered -- btw, the one that got shot in the leg is suing because he can't enjoy sex anymore. Ha! -- but I think justice was served, as far as Martin is concerned.