Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

I used to think, no; even the Tony Martin case didn't seem to be a sufficient reason. But with the case of Carl Lindsay I'm beginning to change my mind. He has just been sentenced to 8 years for manslaughter for stabbing to death with a samurai sword one of 4 armed men who broke into his flat with the intention of robbing him. The jury obviously saw it otherwise but how are you supposed to react when faced by an armed gang threatening you with a firearm? Saying that you should only use reasonable force is a nonsense in a situation like that. How many people would be capable of coolly assessing the situation and using just enough force; not many I'd say.

Two things that make the case even worse are that;

1) The stabbed man managed to flee before dying, so he obviously wasn't hacked to pieces in the flat.

2) What I find incredible is that the CPS initially charged him with murder! Even the jury couldn't swallow that piece of blatant nonsense. The more I hear of the stupid and irrational antics of the CPS, the more I despair of any justice in this country.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

You should be allowed to defend your property in any way you like. If an intruder gets killed in the process then tough luck, he / she shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Just look at it from an international point of view. An Iraqi, Saddam Hussain, is thought to have weapons of mass destruction that could possibly be used against other countries. He is in his own country but the Americans and British want to go after him and if they can't capture him then kill him. They think that they have the right to do so. They do not go in with the attitude that they must only use a little force in case they injure someone. No, it's bombs and missiles galore and if they happen to kill some innocent person then so be it.

If you are in your own home and you find an armed intruder do you think I will just give him a little tap so that I don't hurt him? I wouldn't, I would make sure that he was the one to suffer and not me or my family.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

Yes. Unlimited defense for your property. Nothing bad can come of this, unless you can show me how a dead criminal is a bad thing for society.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

Ridiculous !

I know nothing of the Carl Lindsey case so will not comment on that. However the idea that it is accpetable to kill anyone on your property, just because they are on your property and you do not know why, is totaly ridiculous.

What bad could come of this 'right to kill anyone on your proerty'? Well first off mistakes can and would be made. Secondly, say I want to murder you. I just invite you round, blow your head off and say you were on my property and were probably going to rob me - therefore I legaly killed you. Still I guess if a few innocents have to die to give you a false inmpression that YOUR possesions are a bit more safe - well that's a price worth paying (NOT)!

To compare an illegal invasion of another country, and use that as justification to make other illegal acts legal - well what can I say to that. Ridiculous.

No property (yours or anyone elses) is worth more than a human life (any human life) and this insistance that it is, is imo at least as 'evil' as theft is and probably more so. If armed robbers come into your house the only sensible thing to do is give them anything they want.

I could chuck in the 'christian' view as well - Thou shalt not kill.

Killing is wrong. Full stop. It's wrong when the state 'legaly' kills someone (with the death penalty) and it is wrong when it is done illegaly. Ask any 6 year old and they will tell you two wrongs do not make a right.

All that a law as suggested above can possibly do, is take a materilasitic and violent society and make it more materialistic and violent.

I know I should just stay out of this thread - but really.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

Cite a case where this happened in Texas please. I want some examples of this.

I disagree. Thiefs, murderers, rapists should be executed or killed. We have no need for them in society.

HahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. For me, the sensible thing would be to shoot them dead. ;) That way I keep my stuff, do society a favor, and everyone is happy. In your world, you would lose your property, the criminals would be at large to terrorize some more, and no one would be happy.

Thou shalt not murder. Don't confuse murder with killing.

No, MURDER is wrong. Killing CAN be wrong if you're murdering someone. Killing CAN be honorable and justified in case of self defense, or when you execute a criminal.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

Except for me showing up unannounced at my dad's place the other day. He was wearing his reading glasses to peer into the pots (he was preparing his dinner), and did not recognize his own son. I think he would have been more than a little embarrased at shooting his son. No sign of Alzheimer in my family btw

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

No.

For more information see all my previous posts on this subject.

:wavey: :walk:

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

I can not be bothered to cite case from the USA. My point is that with such a law in lace there WOULD be mistakes and that means the death of an innocent person - in order to protect your property. Guess your possesions are worth that. There are inumerable cases from the US where people have mistakenly shot people in their homes that they thought were robbers but actually turned out to be spouses,children, friends or someother innocent.

Well if christian morality does not wash with you how about some Jedi code? Hate leads to the dark side :) So thiefs should be killed? So I nicked some penny chews from the school tuck shop once when I was 9 or so. Blow me away? Do we have any need for diabled people in society? Should they be killed too. I only ask because your argument at this point _seems_ to be based on how much 'need' society has for an indivdual relating to if they should be killed or not. Or have I got you wrong there?

and of course you would never miss, never be against more than one armed robber. This is real life, not some arnie movie. If you 'resist' an armed robber the chance that you will end up injured or dead increases. That is a fact. Still I guess your TV and viseo are worth that risk, especially if you get a chance to 'wipe some ****' of the face of the earth.

Not sure what Bible you have there but my says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not KILL' (full stop). As do these top three refs from google.
http://www.memorare.com/cards/apostlescard.html

ok the second ref claims kill is a mis translation and it should be murder :)
http://www.phy6.org/outreach/Jewish/Ekev.htm

and the third is for electricains :)
http://www.visdesigns.com/design/commandments.html

OK that was a google on my mispelling of '10 comandments'. So ok I'll drop the 'chrstian morality' arguments (though I do find it hard to imagine JC blowing someone away because they were in his house trying to steal his sandals) :)

Killing in defense of anothers life (yours or someone else's) is moraly ambiguous - but killing in defense of your PROPERTY is not. Personaly I would like to think there are things (some people included) that I would be willing to die for but none that I would be willing to kill for.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

Thought i'd chip in with my 2p worth.

Not that i'm defending the burgular (i'm not), but there is more to this case than meets the eye. Carl Lindsay was actually a drug dealer who was being robbed by other drug dealers trying to steal his drugs. (see here) But even so, I think even a drug dealer should be able to protect his possessions from others.

Also, I don't know how many of these are actually murders, but I imagine it is very small. A lot of people say they would kill someone who broke in, to protect their family, but could they actually kill someone? TBH If someone broke into my house while my family was there, I don't think I could kill him. I'd quite happily kick the s*** out of him until the police arrived, but I don't think I could kill him deliberately. I'm guessing most other people are the same. Most of these deaths of burgulars do tend to be people who died because of their injuries, much later, rather than on the spot. If I was to catch a burgular, and I hit him once over the head to stun him until the police arrived, but he died later because of a haemorrhage, I wouldn't call that unreasonable force. If I hit him repeatedly until he stop breathing, and then some, then that is a different matter. If he died after reasonable force? That would be unfortunate, (especially for the burgular), but with the amount of violence against even cooperative burgulary victims, people have a right to prevent it from happening to them and others. Look at a quote from that article:

Note he chased them out, rather than just systematically killed them all.

Unfortunately, Jerrek, there is a downside to home owners being more pro-active in defending their property. It leads to escalation, as burgulars are more likely to go armed to counter any hostile resistance they might face, than they would for a soft target. It is the same dilemma that the police were facing about introducing guns. Of course, even if home owners were guaranteed to be cooperative (like if any resistance is put up, insurance claims would be denied, say), and burgulars knew this, this would not eliminate violence either.

You just have to try and strike a balance in the middle somewhere.

Another point to think about is that in times of great stress, or worry, such as being burgled, people sometimes go into a temporary reflex-style psychosis. They don't have the opportunity to contemplate any other action than the one they are going to do. They don't have the ability to reason: "Have I hit him enough? What if he gets up while i'm calling the police? Etc. Instinct takes over, and even if they were ardent members of the "Fred Barras Convalescence Support Group" to help injured burgulars, there is no saying if they were ever burgled, they wouldn't do what Martin or many others did. It is not the home owners fault/problem either.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

I read the Torah in the original Hebrew text. (I speak Hebrew) It clearly states "murder." How else could God have ordered the Israelites to attack Canaan?

Exaggerations are not necessary. Regardless, Jesus quite clearly commanded us to take up the sword. AND, God, several times over, commanded people to kill other people. AND lastly, in the near future God will be sentencing people to Hell (eternal death). Your argument does not hold.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

You can't be bothered to cite a case because there is none. I have never read any report of a man inviting someone onto his property so he can kill that person. Your argument is flawed.

Your second point, the accidents point, is valid. Accidents do happen. However, separate the two issues at hand. One is allowing people unlimited self defense, and the second is actually doing something. Just because I can jump of a bridge does not imply I will do it. I firmly believe in restraint. If you can injure a thief instead of killing him, that is better. However, you should not feel intimidated by society from defending yourself. You should not have to live in fear that if you shoot the thief because he was carrying a big knife that you will be sent to 10 years imprisonment.

I myself will not blindly shoot at anyone on my property, and except for one or two psychopaths, I doubt anyone will. If I find someone snooping in my house at 2am in my daughter's room, however, I can't promise not to fatally injure that person, and when I do that, I do NOT WANT to have to choose between protecting my family or going to jail for 10 years.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

Lets get this into context, if someone is on your property and for this I mean "in" your property. He is not lost.

If a person has forced entry into your home, he has not come in to ask for directions.

Now I am not advocating a law that gives you unlimited power to defend your home BUT if someone does enter your home and you tackle this intruder. If the resultant investigation proved that he was there uninvited to rob/kill or rape you. Then you should not be charged with anything.

If the police turn up and find the crime scene where are door has been forced or a window broken to gain entry and find you sat on top of a toe rag thief that you have given a good kicking, then by all means question you but you should not be charged.

By the way here's a tip.

Go out and buy one of those really big "maglite" torchs. The really long ones that are more like a baton, and keep it under you bed.

If you are unfortunate enough to have an intruder in your property go down with the torch and knock seven kinds of $h!t out of him with it.

When the police turn up you say " I heard something and came down stairs with my torch, he attacked me and I defended myself with what I had in my hand at the time"

You see if you go down stairs with a baseball bat, or similar, the police/ CPS would argue that you went with the intention of hurting whoever was down there. But if you use the torch they could not prove any pre-meditation and you would get away with it. ;)

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

But the point was that someone could use such an excuse to arrange a situation where they could murder someone and get away with it. With that context, remember that context being that they would get away with it, if it had happened, then you wouldn`t be reading any reports about it as those would just reflect the story that the killer told.

This one isn`t quite the same context as breaking into a house, but it does illustrate a situation where someone is potentially using an excuse of self-defence to justify murder.

http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/regio...-1957723c.html

Oh look, the jury did decide that in this instance the defendant trying to claim self-defence as a reason was a lie.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969483202845

As I said, the context is not quite the same, but I think that it amply demonstrates that people are willing to murder and then play the self-defence card. Perhaps you would like to reconsider whose argument is flawed.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

I`m sorry, but that is utter BS, just because someone has entered your home with malicious intent you do not have the carte blanche right to inflict whatever injuries on them you want.

Consider this scenario, someone breaks in to my home with the intent to steal or cause harm. I happen to have a shotgun to hand for legitimate purposes. I confront the intruder. There are now various options open to me, but lets just consider two. I could aim the shotgun at the intruder's leg, put them down and then kill the police. The other option is to aim the shotgun at their chest and put them down permanently.

Are you honestly saying that in this situation, where there is a non-lethal alternative available, there should be no charges brought against me if I choose to use the lethal option?

The use of excessive force in self-defence, and obviously the definition of excessive will vary for each individual case, should be treated as a criminal act if the person involved elected not to use a lesser, though still effective, form of defence.

Re: Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property?
 

In your humble opinion.

Again this comes down to the person committing the Criminal act having more rights that the victim of the crime.

Why should a person who "knowingly" and "willingly" enters "your home" to cause you harm in whatever way have any rights in our society.

By taking that decision he is stepping outside of our society, he is saying he does not want to be part of our society, he does not want to contribute to our society, he just wants to cause pain and suffering to other members of our society.

Why should our society protect him.

If he chooses not to break into a home then he will not be at risk of being hurt in the process. Seems like a simple choice to me.

I know it may not be acceptable to the bleeding heart liberals amongst us, and it would never become law.

But this country would be a bloody better place if it did.