Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through November 06, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru January 2003 » The Monkey Hole » Sniper suspects arrested » Archive through November 06, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 11:13 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"If you do not have the right to expel someone from your property, by force if necessary, then private property has no meaning."

There's a big difference between expelling someone from your property by force and shooting him dead for unlawfully entering your property. Private property does have meaning but is it really justifiable to shoot someone dead for trying to steal your DVD player or your PC? If your life is in serious risk then killing someone in self-defence is using reasonable force. Do you really believe that you should have the right to kill someone who tries to steal your private property? For someone who doesn't believe in State executions for murderers its odd that you seem to support the shooting of burglars by private individuals.
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 9:11 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

risk of being shot by a burglar in the UK is therefore negligible.



The risk of being beaten or stabbed by a mugger, or raped, is however, not negligible, and again, significantly higher than it is in the US.

Your claim that most burglars enter when people are not home is not supported by the statistics, which place the percentage of burglaries which take place when the occupants are home at 60%.

And, honestly, I am disgusted by the several news stories I've come across while researching this where British people have been sentenced to long periods in prison for defending themselves, sometimes against armed intruders. If you do not have the right to expel someone from your property, by force if necessary, then private property has no meaning.
Crosby
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 11:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I believe the law that sentenced horse thieves to death is still on the books in some western states. Shooting car thieves is a natural progression.
Bjacques
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 11:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Likewise, a distinction ought to be made between a carjacking (trying to steal your car while you're in it) and regular GTA (or GTA3: Vice City)). Texas apparently allows deadly force in the second case. As necessary as a car is in that state, it's not worth a person's life. In a famous case, the guy killed was a repo man who the homeowner publicly mistook for a thief (but who privately knew the score, I think), and he'd already driven the pickup off the property when shot. He posed absolutely no danger.

C'mon, if you see your car's disappearing taillights, the cops have a good chance of catching the guy and recovering your car, and the guy WILL go to jail. If you draw down on somebody and they have the good sense to turn tail, respect their intelligent decision by letting them live. They won't come back.

If the entry wound is in the back, the shooter should go to jail.
Mogan_David
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 4:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Kallisti,

The very sad case you mentioned in Louisiana is an example of a good idea gone seriously wrong.
Why is it wrong for a frightened homeowner to shoot and kill an intruder. Shouldn't a criminal feel some fear for his own life when he invades and endangers the life of another?

The case in Louisiana certainly didn't meet any criteria that a reasonable person would consider valid for shooting someone. This case only proves that the people who make the laws in Louisiana are idiots, not that homeowners don't have a right to defend themselves.

Whenever one person kills another there should be a trial held to determine whether or not the action was reasonable. If the action was not reasonable then penalties should be applied to the person who did the killing. This seems to me to be common sense.

If someone carjacks me, then by definition he's going to have a gun, or I wouldn't give the SOB the damn car. If a fellow pulls a gun on me and threatens to shoot me, then I am in mortal danger and I believe I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary.

Again this seems like common sense.
Pataphysician
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"neither spoke the other’s language"

"Guns don't argue!" - Prince Buster
Zman7
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 3:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yeah K,
But we still luv ya.
Admin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

and an interview:

Martin Davies: The law in Louisiana is rather more extreme than in many States in this respect. There’s a provision in the Louisiana criminal code which is sort of popularly known as the ‘shoot the car-jacker law’, which was passed several years ago in response to a spate of car-jacking, and what it provides is that if a person uses deadly force, not only to protect themselves, but also to protect their property, their place of business or their motor vehicle, which is why it’s sometimes called the ‘shoot the car-jacker law’, you’re entitled to use deadly force and, I can quote for you if you like: ‘Use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.’ In other words, if you say to someone, ‘Get out of here’, and they don’t leave, or if you say to someone, ‘Get away from my car’, and they don’t get away from your car, you can shoot them. It’s regarded as justifiable homicide, and in this State at least, you’ll not be convicted of a crime.

Damien Carrick: I believe a few years ago this law attracted international attention when a Japanese national was killed. Can you tell me about that case?

Martin Davies: This was a rather odd case of a Japanese tourist who was on his way to a fancy dress party in Baton Rouge, which is the State capital. He was dressed as Elvis, which added this curious touch to the case, and he went to a house to ask the way, because he was lost, and he knocked on the door, and the inhabitants peered through the window and saw this rather odd sight. And they didn’t answer the door, and then he went away and came back again. He knocked on the door and he was looking through the windows, and the inhabitants felt sufficiently threatened that he shot at him to make him go away. And killed him. And he was then not charged with any offence at all, because the law makes it quite clear that what he was engaged in doing amounts to justifiable homicide under the provisions I just spoke about.

Now there was a bit of a fuss about this because the Japanese authorities couldn’t quite believe that such a thing was possible.

Damien Carrick: Did the home owner tell the Japanese national to get off his property?

Martin Davies: I believe that he did, but I think the problem was that they didn’t understand one another very well. From my recollection of the case, which of course was only from media reports, it never went to court, he was calling out through the window and the Japanese man didn’t understand what he was saying, and he didn’t understand what the Japanese man was saying, because neither spoke the other’s language.

Damien Carrick: So there’s no requirement under that law to even say to the intruder, ‘Get off my property or I will shoot you’?

Martin Davies: Most courts asked to interpret this provision I think would say that there is, that what you have to show in order to show that there’s been justifiable homicide under this provision, is that the person committing the homicide reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to compel the intruder to leave. Now I think that many courts, when considering that provision, would say, ‘Well you don’t really have reasonable grounds to believe that force is necessary to compel the person to leave until you’ve at least tried to get them to leave by other means’. In this particular case, the question didn’t arise, because he wasn’t even charged.

Damien Carrick: What was the media response at the time this happened, both in the USA and around the world?

Martin Davies: Well they were unbelieving I think it’s probably fair to say. I said the Japanese authorities were rather taken aback that such a thing could happen to a Japanese national, and that no action would be taken against the perpetrator. There wasn’t a great deal of condemnation of the Louisiana law within the United States, because Louisiana isn’t unique in having this kind of provision by any means. So the interest within the United States was in the rather sort of peculiar aspect of it, you know, ‘Baton Rouge Homeowner shoots Japanese Elvis’, it’s guaranteed to make a spot on the TV news for that reason alone. I wouldn’t say that there was a great deal of condemnation within the United States, although there was certainly some.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s664402.htm

k, I shut up now. bye.
Admin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

ok, and some documentation/opinions:

http://www.survival-center.com/edit/carjack.htm

1997 Aug 15, In Louisiana a self-defense law, passed in June, that permits motorists to use deadly force in a car-jacking incident took effect. (SFC, 8/14/97, p.A3)


also, I had it backwards, Louisiana actually has the same provision for threat to your home and you DON'T have to be in mortal danger. blah blah

"In some states, such as La., in your own home you can use deadly force if some one has broken into your home, and the statute does not seem to require actual "fear of death or serious bodily injury". BUT, it's hard to guess how this might be interpreted given, for example, a situation where someone laid in wait, and then shot someone in their home with no other evidence involved."

This reminds me that we had a neighbor, who lived in this gorgeously huge dilapidated (on the outside) mansion in the lower garden. He'd been broken into repeatedly over the years and told us that he now left his bedroom window unlocked, hoping the next time they broke in he could shoot 'em dead. I once saw him point a rifle at a vagrant that was going thru his trash in front of his house.

thou shalt do internet research before spouting off mouth. rinse and repeat. hehee.
Admin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 1:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

oh heck, what do I know ... I just read it in a news paper. hehe.

anyways, the "don't fuck with my car" law did go into effect.

and remember, this is Louisiana we're talking about.

But then again, California has the three strikes law ...
Crosby
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 1:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

In California you absolutely have the right to shoot a person who forces their way into your home if you feel physically threatened. You also have the right to defend another person from grave bodily harm. You don't have the right to blow away someone who is breaking into your car in the driveway. If it was in an attached garage, it's probably a different story.
Zman7
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

My dear Admin,
I do believe that the use of deadly force can (and has been)justified in the courts in regard to rape, attempted murder, protection of one's life, protection of someone else's life, protection of oneself/another from serious bodily harm. Most states do not recognize the use of deadly for for the protection of property.
Admin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 11:20 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

When I was living in Louisiana they passed this crazy law that it was reasonable to use deadly force against someone *messin'* with your car. I think this was mainly to deal with the car jacking trend.

However, it was still not legal to use such force against someone, say, raping your wife.

Americans and their fucking cars.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Hob, would you feel less secure if any of your friends, family members, in-laws, wife, children, lovers, etc, owned a gun?"

No. But I wouldn't feel any more secure either. However if I had children I'd feel less secure with guns around. Also imagine the scenario where a man finds out that the next door neighbour is fucking his wife on a regular basis behind his back. It wouldn't take much to make such a man pick up a gun, go next door and shoot his neighbour. Actually thinking about this I'd feel less secure with guns around.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Nearly 10% of dwellings in London are burglerized each year. About 7% of dwellings in England and Wales overall, about twice the US rate. That doesn't sound like a negligible risk to me."

No it's not negligible risk and that's why I have home contents insurance. However these burglars rarely carry guns and usually carry out their burglaries during the day when people are out. The risk of being shot by a burglar in the UK is therefore negligible. I know lots of people who have been burgled and it has always happened when they are at work (your Chinese war sword won't help you much here). If an unarmed man breaks into your house and you catch him and shoot him (or chop one of his limbs off with your sword) you'll end up doing a very long stretch in prison, you will certainly not be legally viewed as using 'reasonable force'.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:16 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

MD,

I've no intention of telling you what you should do, that's your business.
_Blackjack
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 9:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Nearly 10% of dwellings in London are burglerized each year. About 7% of dwellings in England and Wales overall, about twice the US rate. That doesn't sound like a negligible risk to me. And, unlike the US, most burglaries in Britain take place when the occupants are home.
Nolamour
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 9:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Since we somehow got on fear...THIS is the true meaning of fear!

fear
Mogan_David
Posted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 7:25 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Head,

That ain't fear, I'll show you fear:

fear
Head_Prosthesis
Posted on Monday, November 4, 2002 - 9:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

HISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Monday, November 4, 2002 - 8:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hob, would you feel less secure if any of your friends, family members, in-laws, wife, children, lovers, etc, owned a gun?
Mogan_David
Posted on Monday, November 4, 2002 - 6:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

As for insurance I'm not a great fan of paid insurance, I do have home contents, buildings and fire insurance and of course car insurance but thats's about it. I do know a lot of people who have had to make claims against such insurance but I do not know anyone who has had to use a weapon against an armed intruder so therefore I consider this to be an extremely negligible risk.



To each his own. To me any risk of rape and/or murder in my own home is reason enough to create a plan of action should the need ever arise. A lot like a fire plan so that everyone in the house is prepared and knows what to do in case of such an emergency.

If these things aren't important to you, fine. Live as you please. Just for God's sake don't tell me how I should live. My guns haven't hurt anyone. Why should you or anyone else take preemptive action that strips me of my rights. It's a little like locking someone up because they look like they may commit a crime sometime in the future.
Head_Prosthesis
Posted on Monday, November 4, 2002 - 6:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

It really do!

clip art is fun
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Monday, November 4, 2002 - 1:14 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Blackjack,

Yes indeed there is a completely different culture over here regarding guns. If a people have never grown up routinely owning them then they are not seen as something we ought to have.

Also sentences in general are not as extreme over here for many offences but they are extreme for crimes involving firearms, therefore it makes a big difference to criminals (especially petty criminals and those not involved in murder etc. anyway) whether they are caught with a gun. Break into a house and rob it and you might get 12 months, get caught breaking into a house at night in possession of a handgun and you might get 7 years. Also bearing in mind that the occupants of the house will almost ceratinly not be armed then as a criminal why take the risk when if disturbed you can just leg it rather than risk being caught.

And as for Northern Ireland, the bigotted, sectarian violence there is just sickening. Today a young man (Catholic) was found beaten to a pulp, nailed to a wooden crucifix and left to die in some remote countryside just outside Belfast (luckily someone happened to be out walking and found him so he is actually alive). And then slogans started appearing painted on the walls of a certain housing estate praising the incident. It makes me ashamed to have grown up in that part of the world and makes me glad I no longer live there.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Monday, November 4, 2002 - 12:59 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Fair enough MD. If you want to sleep with 2 loaded handguns under your bed for insurance then so be it. I'm happy to go to sleep with nothing under my bed but a load of shoes and clutter.

As for insurance I'm not a great fan of paid insurance, I do have home contents, buildings and fire insurance and of course car insurance but thats's about it. I do know a lot of people who have had to make claims against such insurance but I do not know anyone who has had to use a weapon against an armed intruder so therefore I consider this to be an extremely negligible risk.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page