Sword-wielding resident confronts alleged thief

[Watchman]

Kung Lek:

Without laboriously going back and pulling quotes through your last few posts I'll make the observation that your arguments are based on the supposition that Mr. Homeowner has some form of Jedi-like ability to read the home invader's intent before deciding on the "proper" response.

Since most of us regular-type humans don't have this ability there is absolutely no way to read a home invader's intent. How am I supposed to know if Mr. Perpetrator is planning on "just" burglarizing the house, or is intent on murdering my family?? Should I fix him some tea and sit down at the table to interview him?

Here in my little corner of the Land of the Oppressed and Home of the Cowardly the law recognizes my right to self-defense, and I am justified in responding with deadly force to anyone who invades my home. Does this mean I kill everyone who steps into the perimiter? Absolutely not. What it means is that the law recognizes that in many circumstances I have no way of knowing if the intruder is armed or not, or what his intent is - therefore if I fear that my life is in danger I am justified in responding with deadly force.

This is what I don't agree with. But, maybe it's just me who thinks that everyone has value be they criminal or not.What is it that makes a criminal? A law could be passed that would by default make you criminal for some offense tha you may well consider to be innocuous. That's a reality of law.

I think what we're discussing here isn't just breaking the law in general, but other human beings attempting to subvert my right to self-defense and physical security.

[David Jamieson]

I'll make the observation that your arguments are based on the supposition that Mr. Homeowner has some form of Jedi-like ability to read the home invader's intent before deciding on the "proper" response.

Well, that's not exactly what I was saying and I did state that there are many variables.

There is also a difference in Home invader and burglar. A home invader under the current definition enters the home while the ccupant is home and have fullo intent of everything under the law up to and including hostage taking.

I think that hearing someone fiddling with your lock would probably be a lot different than the home invader M.O of taking out the door and storming the house.

I don't think one needs to be a "Jedi" to figure that out. But those are only a couple of what ifs.

Common sense dictates that if someone has you at gunpoint, then you will do what they tell you to or attempt an escape. So, in scenario one (fiddling at the lock) it is entirely inappropriate under the law to let the person finish fiddling with the lock, enter and then shoot them. It is however quite appropriate to call the police, tell the potential burglar that you have called the police and if you do have a firearm tell them you have one and even draw a bead on them. It is just as appropriate to wound if they do not heed your warning.

In scenario two (which is much more drastic) there are definitely less options regarding the action plan and the intent is entirely different. You may still have the opportunity to get through this without a killing taking place.

I am against the idea that every crime warrants harsh punishment. Some of you have stated exactly what I havce stated. A material possession is not worth another persons life.

I think that if the only thing you can think of doing is blowing someones head off, then it is perhaps a problem in your socialization that has led to that inability to react with reasonable force. It may even be a symptom of a greater social ailment.

I don't understand why many people here take the stance that killing is right and they dehumanize people who are petty criminals and thieves.

I would venture that everyone on this board at some point in time has commited a crime common or civil or even traffic offenses.

Not all criminals are the horrible monsters that many are blanketed with. Many are just trying to eat and live in the world. Perhaps they will find a better way, perhaps not. Should it cost them their lives?

here's a quote:

"Under the equal laws of society, the rich as well as the poor are forbidden from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread".

Crime and rising crime is a result and a symptom of degradation of the core values of a society.

I'm not condoning acts of criminality and I certainly believe in the use of some form of legal consequences. But I can't agree with shooting someone because they are stealing from you. There are other ways and not everyone just goes off blindly and starts shooting when someone enters their property.

I do believe that the person the topic is about did shoot the boy in the back as he attempted escape and as well shot the other thief in the legs while also attempting to escape upon realizing that someone was home.

So, in this scenario, what Mr. Martin did was NOT use reasonable force and instead enacted his own form of speedy justice based upon vengeance and frustration.

Which is what some of you here are condoning. In my opinion, that is simply wrong.

cheers

[joedoe]

I tend to agree that people should be allowed to defend their house from intruders/burglars and should not be criminally prosecuted for doing so. However, it does raise an interesting point. By doing so, you indirectly create a particular situation where it is legal for one person to kill another. This would offer a legal loophole to the criminally minded to get away with murder.

It is a tough issue.

[Laughing Cow]

I guess the real question is:

Where does Self Defense end and where does commiting a crime begin.

Shooting ANYBODY in the back I guess is a crime, regardless of what preceeded that action.

Naturally giving citizens too much leeway in issues of home-protection and self defense will result in abuse of those privileges.
And, pls, nodoby deny that it won't.


Other problem is that as a citizen of a country you are givent certain rights which are involatile unless the exact condition under which a revocation of those rights applies.

Too many people I think tend to use too broad a picture to paint SD, Criminals and related issues.

I also think that many people totally mis-understand Self Defense and waht it entails and what they can do to protect their lifes.
Home security is a totally different issue.

How many of those "lets kill the Intruder" have researched non-violent means of deterents.

One of my friends has a nifty system installed in his house, he can switch on ALL the lights in the house and sound a siren with a flick of a switch from ANYWHERE in the house.
So far it has served him well and 2 Intruders retreated immediately.

Cheers.

[Laughing Cow]

Someone menitioned:

"That it is a human right to defend yourself".

Can you show me where this is written and how it applies to ALL humans.

Humans GOT no rights besides those given to them by their respective goverments and if you don't act within those rights, rules and laws than YOU are a criminal.

Natures law specifies "survival of the fittest and most adaptable, which I think rules out most people that follow rules and laws.


BTW, as a law-abiding Citizen you shouldn't even know how to get hold of illegal stuff and similar.

But I guess all the tough talking guys are all model citizens without pirate software, illegally downloaded songs, copied games/software/movies, and so on and never break any law.

Be good.

[Black Jack]

"I think what we're talking discussing here isn't just breaking the law in general but other human beings attempting to subvert my right to self-defense and physical security."- Watchman

Those words sum up my feelings on the topic at hand.

People that want to coodle criminals are sowing their own problems in the legal system. The Canadian legal enviroment is a good example of this revolving door.

Breaking into someones home is not an accidental act. Using a less effective means of self defense as your first line of defense is not noble its just plain stupid. Any person who has no regard for the sanctity of my home and chooses to break into it will more than not have no more regard for my physical well-being.

Which means that more than not if they keep pressing their advance they will end up with some brass Pavlovian conditioning for their actions.

I have the very best home security alert system on the market that makes electronic toys seem petty by comparison. Their furry, big, have prenatural senses, are amazingly strong, and best yet listen to any comand I utter. Next to that I have my Pavlovian conditioning units and a plan of action for such occurances.Same as I do a firedrill plan.

Got my safe room, got my zone of fire, got my cell-phone, got my escape route, if my girl is home I've got two trained shooters in the house incase one of us has to stay on the phone, I know where everything is in the dark.

Oh yea so just to stay on the side of nobility I got a taser to but to hell with that thing unless I find the weird-o standing over my bed at night.

[Watchman]

Humans GOT no rights besides those given to them by their respective goverments and if you don't act within those rights, rules and laws than YOU are a criminal.

Sorry for the hijack, but my rights are at the complete whim of the government??

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Watchman

Sorry for the hijack, but my rights are at the complete whim of the government??

Yes, as they are the law & rule-makers and enforcers of those.
Goverments can change anything they want and there is very little that the average citizen can do about it.

Unless you got a higher authority that can control your goverment and guarantee/fight for your rights.

Even the constitution can and will be changed/amended as the goverment sees fit.

The goverment only grants authority and rights, and what it gives it can take away too.
Thus it is important who gets elected.

Cheers.

[David]

Stop thinking about yourselves as citizens or all is lost!

There is nothing in our genetic makeup which includes a respect for written law, nor is such a respect necessary to sustain our natural lives. Government is an arbitrary method of control, having no meaning or consequence in the real Gandhi-like sense. Civilisation is the process of self-imprisonment, man

Once, I opened the door to a man who produced a knife and forced entry to my home. I ran back to another room and seized my Ethiopean spear. He chased me across the hall and entered the room just as I span back towards him throwing the spear. I felt betrayed by my own sense of self-preservation then - it transpired that I didn't/couldn't let the spear fly. For that, I was hung out of the 4th floor window and threatened with being shot.
My one consolation (apart from not being dropped or shot) was the image of this man's freakishly-wide, white eyes as he saw the spear coming straight at him while he was running straight at it.
If you're wondering how he was going to shoot me with a knife; after the spear he ran back outside and called for re-inforcements at which point the biggest man I ever saw came in and smacked me almost senseless. He had the gun. Why did it happen? They thought I was someone else.
After that event, I left and hardly had the nerve to come and get my belongings (I only took a few things before the whole place was burgled).

It served me no purpose that there was such a thing as the police. So, here I am many years later, training and changing by design. People have to look out for each other and for themselves. If you are going to dial 911/999* then dial it and put the phone where it can pick up the sounds cos I bet you'll be too busy to go through the palaver of wait, service?, name?, address?, nature of the problem?, immediate danger?

A legal spokesman addressing the issue of violence against criminals in the home said that a burglar is still a member of the public and, as such, must be accorded the full protection of the law. Yeah, right

Bastards!

*In the UK, you dial 999 for emergency services. A few years back I heard that they were going to use 911 aswell because of the visiting Americans who seemed unable to remember the UK number when they needed it. It was thought that a disproportionate number of Americans were dying in gutters etc. I just dialled 911 and... it doesn't work! "Go figure!" (Probably revenge for friendly-fire ).

-David

[Mr Punch]

Internal B... I was agreeing with you. The only points I was picking you up on are ones that other people have used to pick holes in my argument before, so I was suggesting you might want to accept these as arguments to prepare yourself for when people throw them at you... or maybe not...!

Never had so much trouble agreeing with someone before!

Originally posted by Internal Boxer
Its not so much competition for funding, its about prioritising,...which is a view everyone I have spoken to share!

Er, agree. But I'm coming at it from a political point-of-view, having liased with local government, MPs, NGOs, community groups and occassionally the police.

In real political terms it's about funding. They only prioritise to get the funding, based on how much revenue they can generate from prosecutions vs man-hours.

Yes you are correct, but again a question of priorities, have you never gone slightly over the limit? do you drive, or when you try to get in the car does it knock your halo off.

Don't drive, but have. Have never gone over the limit in built-up areas and unless I've got someone behind me in those areas, I usually take my time and drive slower than the limit (I'm form a very built up area, loads of parked cars, loads of kids playing in the streets). Don't agree with any limit on the highway, and would occasionally break highway limits as I see fit. Don't have a halo, but I'm working on it. Don't wanna any further into my potential halo/speeding status away from the subject of Martin and home/self defence.

Thats my point mate, it is because it is difficult that they target motorist, Duh, that why more resouces should be focused on such crimes rather than minor motoring offences!

I agree again. But maybe the problem with that is that every crime's different. Sure, as some people have said, you can't afford to wait around and see if the criminal is a young Gene Ching, or David's assailants, but the police look at stats.

According to police figures, the proportion of burglaries that end in violence is very low, and the proportion of non-violent burglaries that remain unsolved is very high, so they don't build-up enough of a database on potential burglars, or the potential violent offenders.

The ones they catch are more often the ones who have been violent/subject to homeowners' violence. The problem with this first category is, those who were violent get stiffer sentences with no access to learn about responsibility, in places where they learn more violence and better techniques for burglary. When released, they don't wanna go back, so they are more like to commit violence to avoid it.

(And no, I don't agree with the soft soap approach, but I don't wanna get sidetracked into sentencing.)

The second category unbalances public perception, which further distorts the police and legislature's sense of priorities towards the public.

The answer...? Dunno mate!

I feel it may be something to do with community policing. If you haven't got the data on potential offenders, you've only got the hindsight of stats after the crime. If you haven't got people on the ground, you've got no data beforehand.

My other gut reaction is that Britain is seriously overcrowded and all of the services are obviously overstretched, so we should be exercising zero-immigration policies. Or gassing people over 70 (sorry Granny!).

It does relate to self defence, cause if the crimes where reduced by catching them and locking them up for a long time then they would not be at risk of injury from the homeowner.

Man, I really don't understand this! Are you suggesting burglars should be locked up for their own defence?!

But OK, response times obviously have an effect on violence to and from housebreakers.

...a lot of the recourse of members of the public depends on their first statement to the police, that can lead to their prosecution or not, but the fact remains, you cannot assult a burglar, but then its rather grey as what consitutes "reasonable force" It bases its presumption that a person has the "ABILITY" to defend themselves, that person may not be physically capable of doing so therefore need a weapon.

Completely agree.

"You didn't wake up. You don't know what would have happened."

I was just spectulating as to what may have happened if I had done I don't understand your logic for this observation. Are you saying I am not allowed to examine outcome if I had woken.

Of course you are free to speculate, but I don't understand your logic for including this speculation in this argument. It seems to me to be kinda like saying, 'Well, I was burgled in my sleep, and I dreamt I woke up and attacked him, and went to prison...': it didn't happen, it is not a moral judgment, or an ethical position; it is fantasy.

I have followed certain cases and have been dismayed at an innocent person protecting their home and family have been prosecuted,... the burglar reliquishes his rights the moment he sets foot in the property

Yep agreed with the first bit. It's the vast minority of cases, but even one such case is wrong. The burglar should of course relinquish rights: right to live in a comfortable room with a TV and three squares (oh the ****ing irony of prison! ), the right to live without punishment, and certainly the right to prosecute/sue for damages the homeowner... but the right to live? They should get that (with reservation: please see my answer below.)

...what if the innocent person is not able to defend themselves without a weapon, this is where the whole argument for "reasonable force" is totally flawed, as soon as a weapon enters the situation, it is viewed in a completely different light regardless if the person weilding it would have any chance without it.

Agreed completely. The law should take into account the homeowner's physical and mental ability to defend themselves with or without a weapon, the level of force used intentionally, and the perceived degree of threat at the time. This would be a difficult law to make fair, but shouldn't be impossible.

If a homeowner intentionally kills a burglar, and can convince the court that the perceived level of threat was sufficient to do so, I don't have a problem with that. If the (burglar-killing) homeowner is deemed psychologically unfit, a danger to the general public (even if this is only as result of the crime) and incapable of remorse or even recognition of his actions he should be treated as such.

I think with the new legislation it can at least allow the burglar to take back defective goods to the victim and demand they are in working order.

LOL. Of course. Cheapskate skanks!

"And many cases where people have defended themselves without excessive violence, and nobody has ever found out. "
Your point being...???

Reasonable level of force. like when I grabbed some little ****bag in a gang by the throat and asked where the guy who tried to rob my house was, before chasing said guy down the road whilst politely informing him I would break his legs if I heard of him robbing anything in our area again...

didn't kill anyone. Didn't think it was necessary. Looking back on it I was lucky the repercussions were minor, but then looking back on it, I like to think that had something to do with my level of judgment of the threat... maybe it did, maybe it didn't. The kid never did anything else in the area until I moved out a couple of years later as far as I know though... (shrug)

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Having a false sense of security through the dependence of others to come to your rescue is for the timid who may become prey for the strong. Take responsibility for your own safety and use your basic human right to self defense when needed. If someone breaks into my home they will get shot period. My right to safety and the safety of my family comes first before any scumbag theif.

Weapons first with hand to hand combat as a LAST resort. This is not Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon for keerists sake.

Fair enough. I agree in principle. If I lived in the US, I would unfortunately feel forced to have to submit to the paranoid siege mentality and keep a gun or two, as the likelihood is that anyone breaking in would be armed.

In the UK, however some crime rates may be growing, it is still different, so while I kept my dog, a bokken, and various other implements to hand and in strategic places, I wouldn't keep a gun. besides, it would be too expensive for me to learn how to use the **** thing!

[Internal Boxer]

Quote. "The only points I was picking you up on are ones that other people have used to pick holes in my argument before, so I was suggesting you might want to accept these as arguments to prepare yourself for when people throw them at you... or maybe not...!

I understand you "generally" agree with what I have said but to be honest your nit picking points are so weak it really does not stand up to scrutiny, or observation, my post was purely subjective and in such a fasion you can either agree or disagree, ironically your the only one to pick up on these "holes", there are holes in any argument my friend that is why it becomes a bit pointless, when you say you are trying to show me these "holes" for my benefit............... very noble of you.

The general consenus is that people have the right to attack intuders in their home, the result may be the death of the intruder, which is not what anyone wants to happen but then when we look a majority of opinion on this issue which is what democracy is based on there is something fundamentally wrong with the judicial system when it does not represent the democratic view. That victims of burglary should never be prosecuted!

Take the case recently where the guy with the air rifle pointed it at the inrtuder, the intruder struggled with the air rifle and it went off blinding the intruder in one eye, now the homeowner is at this moment being prosecuted, my point again relating to "reasonable force", the homeowner could have been helpless against the intruder without this air rifle, and it appears not to be deliberate as there was a struggle, the intruder did not loose his life, yet the victim is the one that is being prosecuted by the CPS, thats why the whole of our judicial system is fu.cked up. It should have NEVER NEVER FU.CKING NEVER have gone to court, this is what people see with dismay.

I am scared that if I defend my self proetecting my family from an intruder, since no matter how low the statistics are on the intruder killing or raping the victim, and believe me the chance that this will happen is still a REAL risk and cannot be ignored. When we look at statistics, it is not a REAL representation as the statistics are taken as a whole of all burglaries, since the majority of which happen with nobody at home, the ones that relate to victims being harmed should be cross referenced against those burglaries that have taken place with someone in the house. That would give a much much higher percentage as this is the only "fair" way to establish the potential risk, it is easy to massage figures that do not represent the true picture.

Every case should be evaluated on its merit with the whole emphasis on the victim of the burglary being the injured party, the home owner should have never been placed in that situation but sadly this is not the view shared by the undemocratic judicial system.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M
You're obviously implying we conclude something about this characterization of Martin. Although you don't clarify, the only obvious conclusion of pertinence would be that it effects how we should treat him under the law.

You still didn't clarify what you mean, so we're left to wonder.

I said explicitly: {But since you come to mention it, a man with no basic recognition of right and wrong should not have the same access to freedom as the rest of us, and certainly not the same access to weapons. For his own safety or others'.} Is this not clear enough for you? "the only conclusion of pertinence" is indeed that it affects how we should treat him under law: as highlighted in red. That would seem to be a clarification, and definitely not an implication, but an explicit statement. Sorry if it was too tricky for you to follow.

I can't offer you any more specifics for reasons set out in my summation below, but let me just say generally...

He should not have been allowed to keep a gun. In fact, his licence had been revoked some years earlier, so it was illegal anyway, regardless of his mental state.

I don't think he should be let out. Admittedly, I have no access to the recent psychological assessments. He said he would not take the law into his own hands again. Unfortunately, any psychological assessments may be biased due to the political spin on the case. But from what I read, from a number of pro- and anti-sources, my opinion is he that is dangerous to the public and delusional.

Who determines who falls under this label?

Psychiatrists. Do I trust them? Not necessarily: they are subjective individuals, often with divided opinions. Also, again affected by political agenda. But can be a necessary evil.

According to present legal thinking, people with no basic recognition of right and wrong are thought of as less culpible, rather than more. Would you care to expound upon the alternative you're implying here?

Now read my posts again very carefully. This is important. I was not implying any alternative in regard to culpability of people with a moral dysfunction. I was not making a judgment about the rights and wrongs of the initial case, though it is obvious, I would think, that I don't agree with Martin's actions.

Then why did you bring up the previous characterizations, whimsy? And why were they brought up in court? Judicial whimsy?

Martin's mental state is relevant to the reasons he committed his actions. It is also relevant to his sentence. It are not directly relevant to the laws he broke.

You might try to remember a little bit more closely, since most of what you said doesn't constitute a legitimate diagnosis in the first place.
...
The legal system has a problem with saying "an unacceptable risk" now? Funny... I seem to have read exactly that in any number of other parole hearings lately. What's special about this case that required them to use this euphemism?

Recall that I suggest it's not a euphemism at all, but simply the only remark they could make that accords with the facts.

I never commented on court-ordered mental treatment. I commented on imprisonment.

I'll freely admit my vested interests: I believe in property rights and right to self-defense.

This is the crux of my initial response. I don't give a ****. I'm not going to look up anything more about Martin's mental state (actually I just did - and surprise surprise, those articles have gone, from both the Guardian and the Norfolk EDP site), or give you the specifics of why I think Martin should be kept locked away. I called it the Tony Martin BS in the first place, because

1) Of course I am biased;
2) More importantly, every other ****er who reads anything about the whole sorry story, with its political spin from all angles, is also completely biased to the point that any relevant points about home/self defence are completely lost.
3) From what you've posted before, when you haven't been trying to lead people into nit-picking off-topic arguments with passive-aggressive insinuation, implication and a basic failure to comprehend wtf is put in front of your face (which admittedly doesn't seem to be so often), we are probably in the same ball park about self/home defence.

Please refrain from calling people ignorant since they disagree with you, and being rude to them since they hold different opinions than you. Thank you.

No, thank you! Look at my post again. I didn't call you ignorant, I said I suspected you hadn't researched.

And I wasn't being rude to you because you disagree with my opinion, but because you had implied in your previous post that I knew little about the case, and I was being rude to you, sir, because I think you're a *****. So I would like to apologise, but I'm afraid I still think you're a *****, so I'll go back to not responding to any of your posts. Cheers.

(Climbs down off high horse, wanders off looking for that **** halo... guess I ain't getting that in a hurry! )

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Internal Boxer
Quote. "The only points I was picking you up on are ones that other people have used to pick holes in my argument before, so I was suggesting you might want to accept these as arguments to prepare yourself for when people throw them at you... or maybe not...!

I understand you "generally" agree with what I have said but to be honest your nit picking points are so weak it really does not stand up to scrutiny, or observation, the post was purely subjective and in such a fasion you can either agree or disagree, ironically your the only one to pick up on these "holes", there are holes in any argument my friend that is why it becomes a bit of a pointless exercise we can only offer our views accross.

LOL.

WTF's your problem?!

My weak nitpicking points are the same points that people who don't agree with US use in courts and the Houses of Parliament. If you don't argue more objectively, you're gonna be stuck on the net while they erode your liberties further.

My post was based on knowledge of the workings of local govt, communities, police etc: when you've researched the stats and talked to some of these people instead of wittering on about your ****ing dreams and putting up a black and white 'poll', then you can have an opinion as 'subjective' as mine! LOL

Man, forget gassing old people, bomb Manchester!

[Internal Boxer]

Mate yeah lets call people ****wits just because they say you did not have any knowledge about the case, shows you up for what you are bud!!