sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 13, 2012 10:20:11 GMT
I'm only responding to your comments mate. I thought that's what this forum was about ?
|
|
|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Aug 13, 2012 10:33:39 GMT
Once a point is made, I see no need for continuous repetition. That indeed is not debate. Please make your point and either develop the discussion or leave it at that.
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 13, 2012 11:22:28 GMT
I guess the law being used to support this particular argument is the issue here. The law is what we are actually debating, so the current position is somewhat of a moot point.
Personally, and I am aware I am probably in a minority, but I believe you should be able to use lethal force against someone breaking into your property. If you have to stop and assess the level of the threat I think you put yourself in danger . The message should be clear to people who break into others homes- you are putting your life at risk.
|
|
|
Post by Robin van Bergkamp on Aug 13, 2012 11:27:06 GMT
In the heat of the moment, how can one who is under threat and not used to assessing the level of lethal force be entirely accountable for use of that force which under the circumstances seemed necessary to defend oneself and one's family, ox, sheep or cat. Heck if some one came at my cat in the middle of the night in a dark hallway I wouldn't hesitate in protecting my own.
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 13, 2012 11:37:13 GMT
I guess the law being used to support this particular argument is the issue here. The law is what we are actually debating, so the current position is somewhat of a moot point. Personally, and I am aware I am probably in a minority, but I believe you should be able to use lethal force against someone breaking into your property. If you have to stop and assess the level of the threat I think you put yourself in danger . The message should be clear to people who break into others homes- you are putting your life at risk. I have no problem with this at all and would agree with you as I would regard this by all accounts as self defense especially if you believe that the individual may be carrying a weapon. What I disagree with is if the criminal is trying to escape the your house and you shoot him as this is exceeding what is needed. However in the case of example mentioned on here already I think its ridiculous that he was punished for trying to protect his home, yes the criminals were trying to escape but you have to take into account the man's age and rational considering that his house broken into multiple times by the sounds of it. I reiterate my stance on guns however if a criminal tries to break into your house and you fear for your life then I believe you should be allowed to take all the necessary steps to ensure that you and your family stay safe including lethal force if need be
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 13, 2012 11:39:27 GMT
In the heat of the moment, how can one who is under threat and not used to assessing the level of lethal force be entirely accountable for use of that force which under the circumstances seemed necessary to defend oneself and one's family, ox, sheep or cat. Heck if some one came at my cat in the middle of the night in a dark hallway I wouldn't hesitate in protecting my own.A cat Person eh? good on yer buddy I would do the same for my cats as I seem them as part of the family just like you
|
|
|
Post by pneawf on Aug 13, 2012 11:50:10 GMT
I don't believe we should make guns available to the public at all.
The US has a lot of gun crime because it has a gun use culture unlike Switzerland which doesn't. We would adopt one quite quickly. Illegal guns are availablre in the US because there are 500 million guns in the US to steal. 120,000 legally owned guns are stolen from people's houses in the US every year.
We have 250 gun related deaths per year, there are 30,000 each year in the US. I know what I prefer.
On the topic of self defence no one in UK history has ever been successfully prosecuted for defending themselves against an intruder. Only 7 people have ever gone to court. Tony Martin lay in wait and was not defending himself. He deliberately left a window open knowing they intended to try and break in. An asian man was prosecuted last year because he also set up a situation which led to a death. two years ago a man killed an intruder who was running away, was halfway down the street trying to flee the houseowner and the owner was not prosecuted. The intruder fleeing does not mean you think the danger has passed. It is how YOU perceive the situation, not the reality of the situation that matters. There are just too many nutters in this coulntry to allow them to become armed. I am one so I know!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ALTBOULI on Aug 13, 2012 12:04:54 GMT
I don't believe we should make guns available to the public at all. The US has a lot of gun crime because it has a gun use culture unlike Switzerland which doesn't. We would adopt one quite quickly. Illegal guns are availablre in the US because there are 500 million guns in the US to steal. 120,000 legally owned guns are stolen from people's houses in the US every year. We have 250 gun related deaths per year, there are 30,000 each year in the US. I know what I prefer. On the topic of self defence no one in UK history has ever been successfully prosecuted for defending themselves against an intruder. Only 7 people have ever gone to court. Tony Martin lay in wait and was not defending himself. He deliberately left a window open knowing they intended to try and break in. An asian man was prosecuted last year because he also set up a situation which led to a death. two years ago a man killed an intruder who was running away, was halfway down the street trying to flee the houseowner and the owner was not prosecuted. The intruder fleeing does not mean you think the danger has passed. It is how YOU perceive the situation, not the reality of the situation that matters. There are just too many nutters in this coulntry to allow them to become armed. I am one so I know!!!! Are you talking from a legal point of view? My issue with this is that Perception can easily be influenced during a traumatic experience meaning that poor judgment can be made. Surely if the criminal is half way down the street then killing him is excessive?
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 13, 2012 12:30:28 GMT
Once a point is made, I see no need for continuous repetition. That indeed is not debate. Please make your point and either develop the discussion or leave it at that. Thank you Mate, I'm simply giving Bergkamp DM a well rounded account of what the jury found in the Tony Martin case. If someone needs more than one comment to understand that, then the onus is on them to inform themselves. You shouldn't chastise the person who is trying to give the full picture.
|
|
|
Post by pneawf on Aug 13, 2012 12:33:45 GMT
I don't believe we should make guns available to the public at all. The US has a lot of gun crime because it has a gun use culture unlike Switzerland which doesn't. We would adopt one quite quickly. Illegal guns are availablre in the US because there are 500 million guns in the US to steal. 120,000 legally owned guns are stolen from people's houses in the US every year. We have 250 gun related deaths per year, there are 30,000 each year in the US. I know what I prefer. On the topic of self defence no one in UK history has ever been successfully prosecuted for defending themselves against an intruder. Only 7 people have ever gone to court. Tony Martin lay in wait and was not defending himself. He deliberately left a window open knowing they intended to try and break in. An asian man was prosecuted last year because he also set up a situation which led to a death. two years ago a man killed an intruder who was running away, was halfway down the street trying to flee the houseowner and the owner was not prosecuted. The intruder fleeing does not mean you think the danger has passed. It is how YOU perceive the situation, not the reality of the situation that matters. There are just too many nutters in this coulntry to allow them to become armed. I am one so I know!!!! Are you talking from a legal point of view? My issue with this is that Perception can easily be influenced during a traumatic experience meaning that poor judgment can be made. Surely if the criminal is half way down the street then killing him is excessive? I agree it may appear excessive to you or I, but if it isn't to the person involved I would say that is what matters. In all honesty I think the poor judgement of the innocent party should trump the poor judgement of someone undertaking a criminal act. I see what you're saying though. Fine line and all that....
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 13, 2012 12:44:07 GMT
Once a point is made, I see no need for continuous repetition. That indeed is not debate. Please make your point and either develop the discussion or leave it at that. Thank you Mate, I'm simply giving Bergkamp DM a well rounded account of what the jury found in the Tony Martin case. If someone needs more than one comment to understand that, then the onus is on them to inform themselves. You shouldn't chastise the person who is trying to give the full picture. What the jury found under the current law is irrelevant to this discussion though. We are discussing views on changing the law, not looking to debate rulings based on current law. The debate is really about should guns be banned in the USA, which has led onto should they be legalised in the Uk - which is a valid progression. Using current law as an argument here is not really progressing the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 13, 2012 13:37:06 GMT
I don't agree with this Jayram There seem to be 2 parts to this argument, whether or not current law should change and the Martin case. If as has been suggested, Martin lay in wait and shot the burglar in the back while he was running away or after he was already injured so couldn't escape, that IS murder and he used too much force to defend himself. Even if he lay in wait .. I still say its self defence because .. he is is his own house. But if the statement is true that Martin knew what he was doing and knowingly shot the man in his back, that cannot be defended. Often when animals have young they will be overly aggressive to protect them, I could accept that had that been Martin's case, but he didn't have any kids in the house so that defence goes out the window. The law is the law and the law is an arse at times but, we have to follow it. I would rather let the police deal with things for me. But make no mistake, if my family or I were threatened and the police were doing nothing about it, I would absolutely take the law into my own hands.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 13, 2012 15:51:44 GMT
I don't agree with this Jayram There seem to be 2 parts to this argument, whether or not current law should change and the Martin case. If as has been suggested, Martin lay in wait and shot the burglar in the back while he was running away or after he was already injured so couldn't escape, that IS murder and he used too much force to defend himself. Even if he lay in wait .. I still say its self defence because .. he is is his own house. But if the statement is true that Martin knew what he was doing and knowingly shot the man in his back, that cannot be defended. Often when animals have young they will be overly aggressive to protect them, I could accept that had that been Martin's case, but he didn't have any kids in the house so that defence goes out the window. The law is the law and the law is an arse at times but, we have to follow it. I would rather let the police deal with things for me. But make no mistake, if my family or I were threatened and the police were doing nothing about it, I would absolutely take the law into my own hands. There is a different point I was making ... I think it's fine to get into the rights and wrongs of the Martin case, but in the context of debating our positions on what we think the law SHOULD be, it is surely erroneous to use a decision based on current law to support an argument. I could just as easily say that because guns by law are legal and so is lethal force in certain circumstances in the USA, then the law must be right. It makes no sense to argue in this way. Hence I think Sensi should be arguing about why he thinks the current law is correct. Not just citing a legal decision under current rules.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 13, 2012 18:33:15 GMT
Fair enough.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 13, 2012 20:46:17 GMT
I didn't say whether I thought the law on reasonable defence was right or wrong, I said that it was applied correctly.
|
|