open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Self defense law: Joe Horn (Texas) vs Tony Martin (UK)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.11 19:05:00 - [61]
 

I think you guys are making a mistake as to the nature of pacifism.

Being a pacifist and fully embracing the ethic of non-violence are not mutually inclusive.

I consider myself a pacifist, but have lived in some rough areas and have, on occassion, been forced to defend myself from the restless natives. Very reluctantly, if I need to employ violence to prevent harm to myself I will. I am also sure I am not alone in this. I would hope that this is the default state for most reasonable people.

The difference between reasonable folk and Tony Martin is that we know (or have an idea) where self-defence stops and reprisal begins. A good yardstick is if it it feels disproportionate, then it's probably over the line.

If Tony Martin is honest with himself, he knows what he did wasn't self defence and I suspect he knew it before he started.

Given that his original murder conviction was knocked down to a manslaughter on grounds of diminshed responsibility on appeal, and that he served 3 years and came out to a exclusive interview deal worth 100-125k depending on which source you read, he's not come out of it too badly.

Also, given that Mr Martin has since his release been quite politically active on behalf of the BNP and UKIP and has attended National Front meetings, how reasonable a guy do you think he can be?

The guy he killed though, remains dead.

None of this excuses the crimes committed by Mr Martin's visitors, but this thread is about self-defence law and the law is clear in such cases. Again, his actions were not self-defence under UK law.



Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.11 20:08:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Kraven Stark


If the quoted type of thinking were provable, it would be considered some for of manslaughter in the U.S. as well. You definitely have a right to protect yourself and your home, but to let someone sit there for the sake of dying is just as despicable if not more so than that person breaking in.

At the end of the day you do not know what drove that person to choose you. It could have been someone just looking for a way to get his next fix or it could be someone who is desperately trying to do things, the wrong way, to get their life where it needs to be.

As soon as the person no longer presents a threat, you should do everything you can to help ensure they do not die or at the very least get help on scene so that someone else can.

But back to your point, expecting civility from humans can be a bit of a crap shoot.


In the end, what matters is what is proveable and how much scrutiny you are likely to be subjected to. Timelines can get very murky the smaller they get, and no one is going to fault a home owner for not calling the police fast enough. Being scared and sheltering in place is a perfectly natural and understandable reaction. A 10 minute discrepency in a situation like that would be dismissed as a fog of war effect and charges will never be filed.

The legal obligation is always based on reasonableness. Did you notify the authorities within a reasonable amount of time? Ten minutes is not unreasonable when dealing with trauma.

Depending on the circumstances, even waiting hours is not unreasonable. If you kill a home intruder, run into a room without a phone, lock the door and keep your gun trained on the door for an hour out of fear that someone else might be in the house, you're not going to face any charges for that.

Secondly, what brings them into your home isn't relevant. You're not going to be playing twenty questions, and there's no way to tell a thief from a rapist or a gangbanger. But frankly, I don't care if they're just there to steal a TV to pay for a drug fix. That's our TV. It was our time, a part of our life spent to pay for it. They are not allowed to have it, whatever their reason is.

Lastly, they showed no concern for their lives when they broke into someone else's home. If they don't care about their lives, you shouldn't either. You have no moral obligation, as a victim or as a compassionate human being, to help your attacker in any way.

Kraven Stark
Caldari
Atavism Industries
Posted - 2011.08.11 20:18:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Kraven Stark on 11/08/2011 20:19:34
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Originally by: Kraven Stark


If the quoted type of thinking were provable, it would be considered some for of manslaughter in the U.S. as well. You definitely have a right to protect yourself and your home, but to let someone sit there for the sake of dying is just as despicable if not more so than that person breaking in.

At the end of the day you do not know what drove that person to choose you. It could have been someone just looking for a way to get his next fix or it could be someone who is desperately trying to do things, the wrong way, to get their life where it needs to be.

As soon as the person no longer presents a threat, you should do everything you can to help ensure they do not die or at the very least get help on scene so that someone else can.

But back to your point, expecting civility from humans can be a bit of a crap shoot.


In the end, what matters is what is proveable and how much scrutiny you are likely to be subjected to. Timelines can get very murky the smaller they get, and no one is going to fault a home owner for not calling the police fast enough. Being scared and sheltering in place is a perfectly natural and understandable reaction. A 10 minute discrepency in a situation like that would be dismissed as a fog of war effect and charges will never be filed.

The legal obligation is always based on reasonableness. Did you notify the authorities within a reasonable amount of time? Ten minutes is not unreasonable when dealing with trauma.

Depending on the circumstances, even waiting hours is not unreasonable. If you kill a home intruder, run into a room without a phone, lock the door and keep your gun trained on the door for an hour out of fear that someone else might be in the house, you're not going to face any charges for that.

Secondly, what brings them into your home isn't relevant. You're not going to be playing twenty questions, and there's no way to tell a thief from a rapist or a gangbanger. But frankly, I don't care if they're just there to steal a TV to pay for a drug fix. That's our TV. It was our time, a part of our life spent to pay for it. They are not allowed to have it, whatever their reason is.

Lastly, they showed no concern for their lives when they broke into someone else's home. If they don't care about their lives, you shouldn't either. You have no moral obligation, as a victim or as a compassionate human being, to help your attacker in any way.


As I clearly said, if it were provable that someone purposefully stalled getting help specifically so the shot intruder had a better chance of dying, then you could be prosecuted. On top of that, you are no better than the person you shot. That said, I do appreciate your agreeing with me by restating what I had already said.

As for the rest of your comment, its a difference of opinion. I know I am not perfect and I know that I have made reckless mistakes in the past, though nothing like breaking into someone's home. That said, what you do in a moment of weakness is not how you should be defined and if you are shot and not immediately killed, you should be given the opportunity to live.

Denying a person the chance to live, particularly when no one else was harmed in anyway, is not a logical conclusion. It's a weak display of emotion. Not only that, you do have a moral obligation to help that person live as long as it doesn't put you or anyone around you in further harm. Immediately calling for an ambulance is not putting yourself in harms way.

That said, not everyone has the ability to find value in life and I do not expect you or others with your similar mindset to agree with me. We are selfish by nature and you can never expect people to completely break away from that type of ingrained behavior.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.11 20:20:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Zyck
I think I should move to these countries where I can break into peoples houses, threaten them and their families, steal anything I want, and never be worried about anyone raising a finger to fight back. Sounds great!


Worked for the Vikings for quite awhile. They seemed like a jolly bunch so long as they weren't on the clock.

RAW23
Posted - 2011.08.11 22:57:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Zyck
I think I should move to these countries where I can break into peoples houses, threaten them and their families, steal anything I want, and never be worried about anyone raising a finger to fight back. Sounds great!


The crime rate will be lower in these countries, so why not? Razz

(I'm assuming you're from the US)

Whilst I don't agree with it, there is a reasonable case that can be made that you will actually be safer (as in less likely to be harmed despite being in more trouble in any specific cases of someone attempting to harm you) under such conditions.

Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2011.08.12 00:55:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Jada Maroo
Edited by: Jada Maroo on 11/08/2011 19:13:35
Originally by: Nerath Naaris


In most CIVILIZED countries, this would be considered murder....


My definition of civilization respects the right to self defense, private property, and consequences for criminal behavior. I suppose if you live in a country populated by geldings, you might disagree.


Civilization is about the rule of law, dignity and respect for your fellow citizens, tolerance and understanding for different beliefs and cultural and racial differences. Many individuals in society fall short of those standards but how those individuals are dealt with defines that society, the old saying that you can judge the state of a civilization by its criminal justice system always seems to hold true.

The laws in the US are fractured at best and savage at their worst, its been pointed out that guns in America don't cause crime and they don't, other countries around the world have firearm regulations that are as relaxed as the US yet have a fraction of the murder and general gun crime. Its clear to see how Americans attitudes towards killing people because they stole some stuff and where running away is a symptom off this savagery.

If the moral standards in the US mean everyday people believe in killing people because they did something which they don't like, because "they need killing" and have no problem with summarily executing burglars as they flee how bad are the moral standards of the criminals going to be?

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.12 01:07:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Bart Starr on 12/08/2011 01:14:13
People here are getting wrapped around the axle, thinking that all life has equal worth. That is simply not true. Men are created equal. The key word being CREATED. The choices you make after you are shat into this world define you.

Killing a criminal who has invaded your home and is attempting to steal your property is not even in the same ballpark as, for instance....
- murdering your wife
- getting drunk and causing a fatal car accident,
- or running over some kid's pet.

Killing a burglar,
-prevents him from ever harming you, ever again.
-assuming he is caught, it saves the legal and the (overcrowded) prison system hundreds of thousands of dollars.
-dead criminals have a recidivism rate of ZERO.
-it injures the people close to that criminal who likely sanctioned the behavior.
-if enough criminals are shot dead, it would eventually create a very strong deterrent. Many interviews have been done with actual convicts. They are generally not scared getting caught and (maybe) doing a little time in prison, but armed homeowners with a shotgun scare the CRAP out of them, and is usually foremost in their mind when committing a B&E.

In the end, its all positive. You win, society wins. What is not to like?

And while the US government does not execute criminals for burglary, the US Federal Government's sanction of the death penalty legitimizes a basic principle:

That taking of a human life in a criminal context is acceptable, even desirable.


Its not murder - its justifiable homicide.

Redflare
Caldari
Black Metal Armory
Slammer's Republic
Posted - 2011.08.12 01:26:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Redflare on 12/08/2011 03:54:54
Edited by: Redflare on 12/08/2011 01:30:01
Bart Starr: A *member of a very horrible, archane socio-political group* by any other name? A person is dead, they are not coming back. A prison sentence offers them the chance to find some sort of redemption. Now, a completely different matter is the expense generated by these inmates....

If all you are concerned about strictly relates to the economics of the situation and some arbitrarily-decided scalable value of human life, then consider the idea someone earlier mentioned: crime rates are lower in areas without a tradition that puts a low value on each life.

*Addition* I just thought of one thing, perhaps most damning many of these posters' comments. Faced with a similar situation, you would not make the killing shot. Likely, even in a justified situation, you would not be the person to kill. The loudest proponents of capital punishment (regardless of the surrounding circumstances; as mentioned, the OP presented two very different cases) tend to be the first to run away, or else worsen everything, when these situations arise.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.12 05:39:00 - [69]
 

I wonder if Obama lets his daughters have Tea Parties?
Twisted Evil
--As far as finding redemption in prison goes, most burglars do not spend a great deal of time (if any) in prison. It simply isn't a very effective deterrent. In many cases, its merely a place for criminals to network for when they get back on 'the outside'.

If they eventually find Jesus, terrific, though I would personally suggest they do it before they pick the wrong house to break into.

--Even though the 'cost savings' of dead criminals to society is no doubt considerable, its not my overriding concern, more of a 'bonus'. Self defense, defense of property, and most importantly, setting harsh limits on criminal behavior by further expanding the definition of 'justified homicide'.

Generally, I prefer not to emphasize the 'cost to society' arguments because those same arguments are used to justify further restrictions on liberty. Everything from gun control to smoking bans to socialized medicine.

--Sweeping statements about 'death penalty supporters' running away from conflict probably won't meet scrutiny. The Joe Horn case was remarkable because he wasn't defending his own 'Castle' - he was defending his neighbor's 'Castle'.

In the process, an important legal precedent was established. Criminals can no longer safely 'case' a single occupant home - without having to consider deadly interference from their neighbors as well. Oh, and Joe Horn is considered a Tea Party hero.

--Personally? I've been jumped and seriously beaten for simply for being white and walking down the wrong sidewalk, but I honestly can't say I've been life or death situation (well, involving a human anyway). Its impossible for me to know for sure how I'd react if it ever (God forbid) came up.

I shoot quite a bit, even competitively years ago, but I don't hunt, because I do not like the idea of killing an animal. Nature is violent, but I consider animals to be essentially innocent, doing what their instincts tell them. Adult human beings are not.

But I can say this: if one of them broke into my home and brought harm to my gal or my Springer Spaniel, I would not hesitate for a second, and I'd do everything in my power to make them suffer before the end came.

--Lastly, consider this: Interviews with homeowners involved in defensive shootings, being generally 'normal' moral individuals, often express a degree of sorrow and suffering after taking a life. Why pile threats of criminal charges on top of it?

baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.12 09:01:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Zyck
I think I should move to these countries where I can break into peoples houses, threaten them and their families, steal anything I want, and never be worried about anyone raising a finger to fight back. Sounds great!


A guy stabbed a yob who broke into his house and threatened them with a knife. The thief died but the home owner wasn't charged because he was justified.

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2011.08.12 10:39:00 - [71]
 

HOW I VIEW THIS WHOLE DEBATE


THE ENGLISH POINT OF VIEW
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

THE US TEXAN POINT OF VIEW
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Marwood Ford
Posted - 2011.08.12 12:07:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Marwood Ford on 12/08/2011 12:09:34
Originally by: Bart Starr
And while the US government does not execute criminals for burglary, the US Federal Government's sanction of the death penalty legitimizes a basic principle:

That taking of a human life in a criminal context is acceptable, even desirable.





...in certain circumstances.

Your "basic principle" is incomplete, and doesn't back up your argument without a deliberate misreading of US law. But you know that.

WeirdNoise
Caldari
tagueuletoi
Posted - 2011.08.12 14:50:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
God, I love Texas. Very Happy

And so do I. And yet I'm french, where the gun & self-defense laws are nearly as stupid as in the UK.
Also, I usually flame americans. But this... this is what every country should be like, and would be without heavy commie/zionist conditioning.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2011.08.12 15:57:00 - [74]
 

While talking about consequences, is there also a rule about 'Unnecessary Rightful Force' that requires you to pay for the clean-up?

Like, when you kill someone that didn't require killing despite your right for lethal force you have to pay for the removal of the corpse, cleaning of blood stains and the minimal price for 'proper' burial.

It would be fair, no?

Aemynn
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:10:00 - [75]
 

We have wandered a bit into societal/political commentary. You have my apologies in advance for my preaching, but the level of cynicism and naivety has irked me.

Shooting intruders is a defensive or stalling tactic. It is not going to resolve the conditions that create a real or imagined growing societal instability problem (UK riots, race riots, class warfare, wealth imbalance, etc.. Pick your favorite.)


Story Time
Once upon a time, a Son worked at a convenience store to earn money to buy gifts for Christmas. One day the store was robbed and the Son was shot and killed. When the Killers were caught, the Son's Mother went to Court to see those who had killed her child. The Mother found herself shocked both at how young the murderers were (young teenagers) and at their complete lack of respect for life (no remorse for their crime.) Instead of railing at Fate and Society, the Mother acted.

The Mother and her Husband created a free pre-kindergarten school for at-risk children. What does "at-risk" mean? These are children for whom the school meals are often the only food they receive that day. For whom a winter coat, hat and mittens are considered a Christmas gift instead of a back to school necessity. Some have emotional issues. All have really big smiles.

The Mother and Husband, while earning no wages (they live on Social Security checks, the husband drives the school's bus,) and relying on donations plus the local food bank and underpaid assistants (underpaid to the point they're almost volunteers,) they feed the children, teach them their letters, their numbers, a tad of Christian morality, and how to behave socially. Thus when the children enter public school, they have the self-discipline to behave in class and are ready to learn.

Since opening years ago, some of the school's alumni have gone on to college.


Take Aways
There are people who will kill you for no good reason. They really do exist, and you are not immune. US Society, a mighty technological and economic marvel that has developed the means to destroy civilization, that has developed an incredibly efficient world wide communications network (internet,) and that can export a food surplus (45% of wheat is exported,) has shown that it is still possible to create, harbor, and grow the systemic societal rot necessary to create child citizens that place no value on another's life.

Secondly, one has a choice on how to treat the rot. One can ignore the rot, one can excise or amputate the rot when it finally encroaches on one's personal boundaries, or one can take actions to stop the rot before it has a chance to take hold.



Finally, As an aside, several years ago, thieves broke into the schoolroom (a rented room in a Church of all things) and in addition to stealing valuables, the thieves stole the school's food. An individual armed homeowner can defend against a burglar trying to steal a flat-screen telly because most thieves value their lives more than a luxury item, but can an individual truly stockpile enough ammunition to defend against people willing to steal food?



Zyck
Greater Order Of Destruction
Black Legion.
Posted - 2011.08.12 18:15:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Zyck on 12/08/2011 18:15:47
Originally by: Aemynn

but can an individual truly stockpile enough ammunition to defend against people willing to steal food?



Yes, it takes no more bullets to shoot someone stealing food than a TV. And the government gives out food stamps if you're that bad off and there are charity soup kitchens in most population areas. No one will starve to death in the US unless they do it to themselves. And, generally speaking, if all you wanted to steal was food you wouldn't be breaking into a church to do it.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.08.12 18:23:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Edited by: Bart Starr on 12/08/2011 01:14:13
People here are getting wrapped around the axle, thinking that all life has equal worth. That is simply not true. Men are created equal. The key word being CREATED. The choices you make after you are shat into this world define you.

Killing a criminal who has invaded your home and is attempting to steal your property is not even in the same ballpark as, for instance....
- murdering your wife
- getting drunk and causing a fatal car accident,
- or running over some kid's pet.

Killing a burglar,
-prevents him from ever harming you, ever again.
-assuming he is caught, it saves the legal and the (overcrowded) prison system hundreds of thousands of dollars.
-dead criminals have a recidivism rate of ZERO.
-it injures the people close to that criminal who likely sanctioned the behavior.
-if enough criminals are shot dead, it would eventually create a very strong deterrent. Many interviews have been done with actual convicts. They are generally not scared getting caught and (maybe) doing a little time in prison, but armed homeowners with a shotgun scare the CRAP out of them, and is usually foremost in their mind when committing a B&E.

In the end, its all positive. You win, society wins. What is not to like?

And while the US government does not execute criminals for burglary, the US Federal Government's sanction of the death penalty legitimizes a basic principle:

That taking of a human life in a criminal context is acceptable, even desirable.


Its not murder - its justifiable homicide.



You forgot to mention many burglars end up harming or killing someone eventually.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.08.12 18:39:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Barakkus


You forgot to mention many burglars end up harming or killing someone eventually.


Would that include the ones that harm or kill themselves in the process?

GreasyCarl Semah
Posted - 2011.08.12 20:46:00 - [79]
 

I live in Texas, Dallas to be exact. We have a saying around here "When you need the police in seconds, they are only minutes away".

I am amused that some people think if someone breaks into their house in the middle of the night they are going to have time to assess if they are armed and what their intentions are. If they are armed, you are most certainly going to be dead before you can figure out their intentions.

The Joe Horn case was only an issue because he stopped his neighbor's house from being broke into. If they were breaking into Joe Horn's house there would have been no question that he was justified in doing what he did. While on one hand it isn't a great thing that he shot two people, on the other you have to realize that he had no idea if they were armed or if they were going to harm him or someone else. Ultimately the guys doing the burglary put themselves in that situation to begin with, not Joe Horn. Why not lay the blame for what happened on them? If not for their actions, Joe Horn would have stayed on his computer rather than being put in a position to make a decision about ending someone's life.

As for Texas law, we have the "castle doctrine" here. If someone is breaking into your house or car at night, you can shoot to stop them damaging your property. Keep in mind that we have problems with criminal gangs coming from Latin America, forming burglary rings and robbing house after house, all in one night. Often doing home invasion type robberies where people are beaten, kidnapped or killed. These guys do not play around and it isn't a game.

Myself, I own several assault rifles and pistols but my home defense weapon is a Saiga 12 semi-auto shotgun with a 10 round magazine of 00 buck. Don't get me wrong, I hope I never have to use it. I'm not deluded enough to think killing someone is a pleasant experience. I have seen death before and it isn't like in the movies. But I'd be more than happy to blow a hole in someone's face if my child was in danger, I wouldn't even hesitate.

GreasyCarl Semah
Posted - 2011.08.12 20:50:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
You forgot to mention many burglars end up harming or killing someone eventually.


An excellent point. Successful criminals keep doing what they are doing. While I am able to defend myself and have no problem doing so, a successful criminal may go on to commit a crime involving a child or someone's mother or grandmother. I'm more than happy to do away with that possibility.

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.08.12 21:44:00 - [81]
 

While it is obvious that killing someone out of hatred is a wrong, it is also wrong to tell someone that the only thing they are allowed to do is call the cops and then sit and watch while someone steals from them.

I would ever so slightly agree with the US version. However, just because someone commits a crime doesn't mean you have the right to go out and kill them. After all, if this were the case, I'm sure that 90% of the world would have to die because they downloaded a ripped CD.

Ethically speaking, you have to identify when someone is ethically permitted to take action against a criminal, and when ethics demands that a person do nothing but watch a crime take place after alerting the authorities.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.08.12 22:34:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: GreasyCarl Semah
The Joe Horn case was only an issue because he stopped his neighbor's house from being broke into. If they were breaking into Joe Horn's house there would have been no question that he was justified in doing what he did. While on one hand it isn't a great thing that he shot two people, on the other you have to realize that he had no idea if they were armed or if they were going to harm him or someone else. Ultimately the guys doing the burglary put themselves in that situation to begin with, not Joe Horn. Why not lay the blame for what happened on them? If not for their actions, Joe Horn would have stayed on his computer rather than being put in a position to make a decision about ending someone's life.


Pretty much.
...and to add, the guys who busted in on my friend at her boyfriend's apartment weren't armed, they killed her with whatever it was that was in the apartment they could beat her with while she was tied to a chair...so yeah, shoot first, ask questions later honestly....

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.08.13 00:33:00 - [83]
 

Killing someone defending your own life/health or the life/health of another person, no questions asked that is 100% justified.

I dont know of any western country that doesnt approve of it, as long as it is in (self-)defence. Yes you will face a trial, and rightfully so, but you will be cleared if it is found you did truly act in self-defence.


Now, killing someone over property is a completely different matter. A civilized country naturally values the life of a human being more than mere property.

You still might end up in a situation where killing is justified, i.e. you are trying to chase away a burglar to prevent them from stealing stuff and a fight breaks out forcing you to defend yourself.

However, shooting a thief in the back while he is fleeing and not posing any threat, you really should be treated like the animal you are. Thrown in a cage for life, as you have proven to be unable to adhere to the very basic rules of civilization.


As for weapons, I'll prefer a blade over a firearm any day. Proven to be a lot more threatening psychologically, and allows for a more flexible response in terms of intimidating/incapacitating/killing.

GreasyCarl Semah
Posted - 2011.08.13 00:57:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Killing someone defending your own life/health or the life/health of another person, no questions asked that is 100% justified.


The problem with the idea of shooting someone to only guard your life in a burglary situation is that you have no idea what a person's intentions are. You also have no idea if they are armed. Thus, the position of the State of Texas is that any intruder is considered a threat to your life and you have the right to defend yourself appropriately.

In Texas, it would not be acceptable to shoot someone in the back if they were running away from you. However, it would be legal if you found them breaking into your car or home at night and they happened to have their back turned to you. Myself, if I had the drop on a thief by being behind their back, I'd ask to see their hands, if they don't comply or they have a weapon and I see it, they are probably going to eat hot lead.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.08.13 07:08:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: GreasyCarl Semah
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Killing someone defending your own life/health or the life/health of another person, no questions asked that is 100% justified.


The problem with the idea of shooting someone to only guard your life in a burglary situation is that you have no idea what a person's intentions are. You also have no idea if they are armed.


I wasnt talking about shooting or burglary in particular there, just in general terms.

Now I'm not familiar with US laws, but commonly self-defence or the defence of a third person also applies to situations like you being witness to a battery scene on the street.

That does not only include life and physical health but usually also reputation, i.e. you can intervene with force when you see a guy trying to rip off a womans clothing in public or some such.


You might know the attacker is unarmed, decide to intervene in favour of the victim, and accidentially cause the death of said attacker by sheer bad luck, i.e. punch to the face knocking them out cold and them busting open their head on a stone or something.

Of course there is always room to argue, like say you are way superior to the attacker in body strength. It would not be reasonable to grab a nearby steel pipe and beat them with it, in case you are a very skinny and rather weak person going against a 6.1" 250lbs guy it might.

Reasonable response is usually the keyword.

nahtoh
Caldari
Brotherhood of The Saltire
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2011.08.13 15:21:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
Yes, I did know that. However, Martin stated that he was
A) blinded by a flashlight, and
B) he shot into the darkness, so he had no idea which direction his assailants were facing.

The surviving thief may have told another story, but he (and his extended family) cannot be considered credible, due to his status as a repeat offender.

Really, it doesn't matter. They broke into an occupied home and CHOSE to put themselves into jeopardy. Whether or not they are a 'threat' is for the homeowner to decide. Martin's action provided a valuable public service. Its just a shame he wasn't as efficient as Joe Horn.

Its interesting, though - if Martin truly 'ambushed them' in cold blood, as the gypsies alleged, how is it that anyone survived to tell the tale? I would think Martin could have easily chased down a man with shredded legs crawling on his belly - and finished him off. In fact, it would have saved him a lot of trouble, had there been no surviving witnesses.

But I digress, motive, armed, child or not, planned or not - none of it matters. The deaths came about simply because the gypsies killed themselves by making a fatally bad decision - breaking into the home of an armed citizen.



Hmm, some other details about the tony martin case, it was not his actual residence but a derlict or at least unocuopied building he owned, all windows bar the one they entered were barred/blocked (from what I remember). It was also direct LOS from the stairs.

stashes of shells where also found, not to mention obsticales as well.

Now before any jumps all over me my first thought was darwin in action, don't want shot don't break in etc. It did change when other infomation came out.

Raetherana
Posted - 2011.08.13 16:10:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr
"Chavs" are running rampant in the UK, stealing, looting, even killing. British "Health and Safety" has gone out the window. Baseball bats are selling like hotcakes as Brits are arming themselves as well as their nanny-state government permits. These violent clashes have caused me to read up on the differences in what the US and the UK consider to be 'justifiable self-defense'.

Interesting comparison in how each society handles the use of firearms in defense of life and property. Exclamation

First, in the UK.

Tony Martin, elderly Norfolk farmer.

-His house having been repeatedly broken into, he arms himself. When his house is broken into for a 10th time, he confronts them and kills one, wounding the other with a shotgun.

-Surviving criminal sentenced to 3 years, while the farmer initially got LIFE imprisonment.

-Martin eventually was able to get his imprisonment reduced to five years, but was required to employ a humiliating 'personality disorder' defense.

-BBC media accounts I have seen clearly treated Martin as a highly dangerous individual (glowering, unflattering photos), while the 16-year old burglar was portrayed in a sympathetic manner (+smiling photos childhood), despite having a lengthy criminal record.

-Wounded thief had the nerve to pursue financial damages from the farmer for being injured while attempting to rob his home, and had some success until The Sun exposed that he wasn't as badly hurt as he his lawsuit claimed.

Joe Horn: Texas, 2008.
Older man, typing on his computer when he hears breaking glass next door.
Seeing 'two black men' breaking into his neighbor's house, he calls 911.
Police take too long to arrive, so when the thieves attempt to escape the house, Joe Horn confronts them in the yard with a shotgun, telling the police dispatcher that "I am going to kill them." Three shotgun blasts and two dead thieves later, Joe Horn becomes a folk hero.

-The entire confrontation took place while Joe was on the phone with the police dispatcher. (Its funny to hear the dispatcher doing everything he can to stop Joe from blowing away the crooks, I was laughing my ass off.)

-The dead criminals were identified as worthless Columbian illegal immigrants who had been previously deported for drug dealing. Fortunately, this misadventure rendered them incapable of further mischief.

-Joe Horn was not defending his own house or his person - but his neighbors unoccupied home and property.

-Grand Jury refused to indict, as no crime was committed under Texas law.

-Liberals and the NAACP were scandalized. Black Panthers attempted to protest the shootings at Joe's home, but the slick beret-wearing Negros are promptly driven off by Hells Angels and a throng of patriotic supporters, all on video. God, I love Texas. Very Happy

What sort of society do YOU prefer? A place like England, where innocent victims are criminalized and punished for defending themselves? Or a society like Texas that respects private property and gun ownership rights, while championing those who refuse to be bullied the scum that creep amongst us?


So you were dying to post several racist views, all w****d up in a neat excuse of article to feel justified.
shooting anyone in your lawn in colorado will trow your sorry ass in prision for murder, if the individuals had given up and it seems that way by your comments they presented no threat.
but then again the texas system descided to be supportive a murderer becaue he is white and killed some colombian illegal blacks, makes me wonder if they would have been some white gringo if he would have fared as well as he did.

mama guru
Gallente
Thundercats
Posted - 2011.08.13 19:12:00 - [88]
 

The US locks up more people per capita than North Kora.

The US is NOT a welfare state. Otherwise it would not have the problems it has today, much less charge you $50k for an ambulance ride.

Shooting someone for breaking into your house is not an acceptable response or punishment. Whats next? Hacking off arms for shoplifting? We have self defense laws belive it or not Bart Starr, but shooting two unarmed kids during a BNE is not in any way a reasonable response unless they were charging you with a chainsaw. Seriously, things like this makes me wonder if you just lack common sense or education or if you really are blind to all the evidence thats there to find. Scandinavia has very strict gun control laws and guess what that keeps the guns out of dangerous criminals hands aswell as farmer Dan's ****** hating friends. Most BNE's here are really done in summer houses in the south by romanian "tourists" in the bloody winter.

And before you mention the Oslo bombings or the school shooting in Finland a few years back: Those events are about as common to us as World war II, and they claim about as many victims as the rest of our countries does in one decade. So I think I'll stay here in Sweden tyvm.


TL;DR: Screw Texas, the US would be better of if you just seceeded.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2011.08.13 20:14:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Bart Starr on 13/08/2011 20:47:28
No, the illegal alien burglars that Joe Horn shot did not give up. They tried to escape with about $6000 in stolen valuables. B&E is a serious offense and $6000 is a lot of money. Of course, WHAT they stole is not important. They could have raided the fridge for all Horn knew.

Are you seriously telling me that Horn was obligated to let them escape once they've left the house?

Colorado law says you are allowed to use deadly force at home in defense of life AND property. They can be killed on the front lawn if they HAVE "gained entry" that is, broken into the home. If they have not yet illegally gained entry to the home, then there must be a reasonable belief of a physical threat. Colorado self-defense law currently has a loophole that Republicans and the NRA will likely close after the next election - businesses are currently NOT covered.

Last, the only reason the disgusting NAACP race hustlers get involved isn't because they are taking a principled stand on firearms. They get involved because they understand that blacks tend to commit these types of crimes at far higher rates than do others, and the victims defending their homes with deadly force tend to be white. If the shoe was on the other foot, demographically speaking, their position on self-defense would change.

(Not saying that blacks don't victimize other blacks in ferocious numbers - they do, at far higher rates than any 'interracial' crime. But those inner-city localities tend to have very strict gun controls and tend to be located in 'blue' states that tend to frown on individuals defending themselves.)

EDIT: Finland's school shootingS, plural. Two within a single calender year, in a country with strict gun control, and only 5M citizens. Compared to a country of 300M, seems the school shooting rate per capita is comparable.

I don't doubt that Scandinavian gun control does a good job of keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals/mass murderers - not so much.

Defense of property is important. Private property ownership is a cornerstone of American society, and worth defending. "Property is replaceable, life isn't" is a slogan, not a compelling argument. If some scumbag steals my car, I can buy a new one. But I can't replace all the weeks, months or years I spent toiling at work to earn the money to pay for it.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.13 20:47:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Bart Starr

Older man, typing on his computer when he hears breaking glass next door.
Seeing 'two black men' breaking into his neighbor's house, he calls 911.
Police take too long to arrive, so when the thieves attempt to escape the house, Joe Horn confronts them in the yard with a shotgun, telling the police dispatcher that "I am going to kill them." Three shotgun blasts and two dead thieves later, Joe Horn becomes a folk hero.



So the thieves were running away when that idiot decided to kill them. Sound like a clear case of self-defense, right?

The truth is that Joe Horn was NOT threatened in any way, the thieves weren't even stealing things in his own house. He's just a man who decided to do "justice" himself, to become the judge and executionner without any of the impartiality, detachement and clear analysis of the facts that warrant a fair judgement. The man is a murderer.

The morons who applaud that aren't better than the average lynch mobs in middle-east, either. The mentalities and motivations are clearly similar...



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only