Should there be a right of unlimited defence of your property? - Page 2

Ramrod · 25-03-2004, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

No.

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

Yep, I think we've said more than enough on this general subject.

I'd like a link to this specific case though

erol · 25-03-2004, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

No it comes down to _everyone_ having the _same_ rights under the law. No more and no less for anyone. That's the way law works.

Pierre · 25-03-2004, 09:36

Quote:

No it comes down to _everyone_ having the _same_ rights under the law. No more and no less for anyone. That's the way law works.

A point that I cannot argue.

But the law sir, is an ass.

erol · 25-03-2004, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Regardless, Jesus quite clearly commanded us to take up the sword.

Well at the risk of taking this off topic, where does he (JC) do that then? Just curious really. In fact so curious I just tried a 'bible search here'
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...rd&version=NIV

Can't see any hits reffering to JC commanding us to take up our swords though?

I can see this

'Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'

Matthew 26:52

(PS I guess if JC turned up today, he would no doubt be dismissed by many as a 'bleedinh heart liberal)

erol · 25-03-2004, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

But the law sir, is an ass.

The law can at times be an ass. However if you are going to have law then the objective has to be to have it be applied equally to all, otherwise it is no longer law.

Pierre · 25-03-2004, 09:52

Quote:

The law can at times be an ass. However if you are going to have law then the objective has to be to have it be applied equally to all, otherwise it is no longer law.

I have to respectfully disagree, it would be possible to bring in legislation to give more power to homeowners and therefore deter would be criminals.

Stuartbe · 25-03-2004, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I have to respectfully disagree, it would be possible to bring in legislation to give more power to homeowners and therefore deter would be criminals.

I dont see how this would deter criminals as the vast majority of intrusions ocur when people are out....

If someone broke into my house when I was there I would protect myself but I would only disable the person or detain him until the police arived. I cant see any need to kill the guy !

If you have an alarm system on your home make sure that you set it when you go to bed. Most systems can be set up to do this.

Pierre · 25-03-2004, 10:17

Quote:

If someone broke into my house when I was there I would protect myself but I would only disable the person or detain him until the police arived. I cant see any need to kill the guy !

I have never mentioned killing anyone.

However, I note you say that you would disable the man and detain him.

If he doesn't attack you how will you disable him? if you make the first move you are attacking him and you could be arrested for assault.

Also you say detain him, you could be arrested for false inprisonment, kidnapping or abduction.

This is what I am talking about you should be able to disable and detain someone and escape charge but under the present system you cannot.

you can only use the undefined "reasonable force". If you knock someone out is that "reasonable"? if you tie someone up is that "reasonable"? If you kill someone is that "reasonable"?

depening on the situation you may think youare being reasonable, however the CPS may disagree and charge you and you may be convicted.

There are no guidelines for people to follow, people don't know what to do. The safest option is to let whoever is robbing you carry on, and make him a cup of tea whiles he's at it.

This why I suggested

Quote:

If the resultant investigation proved that he was there uninvited to rob/kill or rape you. Then you should not be charged with anything.

Then at least you have the knowledge that you can defend your property

Jerrek · 25-03-2004, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by erol

Well at the risk of taking this off topic, where does he (JC) do that then? Just curious really. In fact so curious I just tried a 'bible search here'
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...rd&version=NIV

Can't see any hits reffering to JC commanding us to take up our swords though?

I can see this

'Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'

Matthew 26:52

(PS I guess if JC turned up today, he would no doubt be dismissed by many as a 'bleedinh heart liberal)

And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." -Luke 22:35-38

Jesus would be a liberal? Are you nuts? You think He would advocate gay marriages? You think He would advocate murdering innocent babies? You think He would advocate drug use that sends your mind on a trip, open to outside demonic influences? You think He would destroy things at "peace" rallies? You think He will be rooting for Saddam Hussein and Palestinians?

Get real.

punky · 25-03-2004, 14:56

Jesus was fairly liberal at the time, but don't forget this was 1,970 years ago so even the most liberal people back then seem pretty close-minded to us. Back then, people thought feeding live humans to lions was a good idea

ian@huth · 25-03-2004, 15:14

If you don't agree with the right of unlimited defence of your property then what do you suggest in its place?

Along comes a burgler and he thinks that he will ahve a go at your house. If he gets in and is not caught he escapes with your property and you lose, he wins.

If he does get caught in the act he either gets aprehended or escapes, maybe still having some of your property with him. You stand to lose again. not just the property that he has stolen but also the cost of putting right any damage he has caused.

If you manage to injure the burgler he could sue you for damages and he wins and you lose yet again.

The worst case scenario for the burgler (if killing him is not an option) is that he may get injured and end up in jail to boot. Jail, that cold, draughty place where you are fed on bread and water and forced to break up rocks all day whilst having a 56lb ball chained to your leg.

Why should the burgler have it all going for him? Can you read his mind and know for sure that your life is not in danger as he may try to silence you so that you cannot identify him? Will he be as inhibited as you in only using justifiable force?

punky · 25-03-2004, 15:38

Like I said, you need to find a balance in the middle. I think all homeowners have the right to defend their property to some degree, but you can't deliberately murder them outright. The idea is to make them face the court's justice rather than your own.

To put it in a more quantitive way, i'd say anything upto GBH is acceptable, if the guy:

Is armed with any weapon or there is good reason to suspect he he did.
If he tried to assault anyone.
Had a history of aggrivated burgulary, or there is an epidemic in the neighbourhood.

Anything resulting in a death, or anything very close to, should result in some kind of trial. If anyone killed a burgular inadvertly. (i.e. stabbed one in the leg, he ran off and died of bleeding later), then he shouldn't be punished. If he killed someone and it is less obvious he tried to injure someone (i.e. shot a burgular in the head, and claimed he aimed for his stomach), then he should be tried for manslaughter with deminished responsibility, with a cap on punishment. 5 years say. If someone outright tried to kill a burgular (i.e. chopped their head off with an axe, with no evidence of the burgular threatening their life), then they should be tried for murder like normal.

Of course this makes the law pretty complicated to follow, but would strike the best balance IMO. Basically, injurying burgulars = fine, killing burgulars accidently isn't fine, but should be punished sympathetically, killing a burgular deliberately (unless in self defence) isn't right.

25-03-2004, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Jesus would be a liberal? Are you nuts? You think He would advocate gay marriages? You think He would advocate murdering innocent babies? You think He would advocate drug use that sends your mind on a trip, open to outside demonic influences? You think He would destroy things at "peace" rallies? You think He will be rooting for Saddam Hussein and Palestinians?Get real.

You have an incredible knack or raising irrelevant emotional rhetoric.

Of course, you have a direct line to Jesus so you know his opinion on gay marriages.

An abortion is not murder, any more than sterilising a culture of skin cells grown on an agar dish is. It's a biological function, not a life.

Drugs? Demonic influences? Utter rubbish. For a man who claims to know the bible, I`m sure you'll know who to call if you want wine and only have water. Have you conveniently forgotten that alcohol is a drug as well?

Who knows whether he would be rooting for the Palestinians? They are, after all, fighting for their freedom from the oppressive tyranny that has seen them have their lands systematically stolen. If I had the power I certainly know on what side of that conflict my smiting would be directed at.

downquark1 · 25-03-2004, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Jesus would be a liberal? Are you nuts? You think He would advocate gay marriages? You think He would advocate murdering innocent babies? You think He would advocate drug use that sends your mind on a trip, open to outside demonic influences? You think He would destroy things at "peace" rallies? You think He will be rooting for Saddam Hussein and Palestinians?

My interpretation of Jesus was that he was a liberal, of course there were different standards at that time

Turn the other cheek
He who without sin cast the first stone
Love thy neighbour as yourself
Good smaritan
Mary Magdalen

to name some examples

Of course somethings he said were a bit contradictory

tkiely · 25-03-2004, 17:18

The defence of your property should start with efforts to prevent people breaking in in the first place.

Hatfield is a crap place to live if you dont want to get burgled.

Last year, 4 houses on one side of mine and one on the other were burgled more than once each.

My house remained untouched, reason? 5 dogs oh and see this attachment.