3 Jul 11, 9:02 PM
merrynb99
UK(SL), 6 yrs
 |
DancesWithPussycats wrote:
I don't know. If someone broke into my home and I didn't kill them, and they went on to stab a little old lady, I don't know how I'd handle the guilt. Really we have a duty to kill them, its the only way to be sure, its part of our duty of care to our neighbours.
|
I like a man who can turn a home defence issue into a health and safety issue 
"To Rample: the ability to reduce a man to helplessness through a chilly sensuality" (Barry Norman, about Charlotte Rampling)
|
4 Jul 11, 9:11 AM
icarus_101
UK(SG), 4 yrs |
Way back when, prior to John Peel having this bright idea about something called a Police Force, if an individual was 'done wrong', it wasleft, neigh expected that that party would seek retrebution.
When we all 'elected' to hand over this function to the Police Force, we mostly gave up our individual right to take matters into our own hands.
That is basically how the law is structured, in principle.
Nowadays, it can pretty easily be argument that the polic force are failing consistantly to hold up their end of the bargain - be it cost cuts or stupid narrow sighted laws.
Laws of the countries who have had to adapt to a modern society when creating their laws - I'm thinking of South Africa and the USA here - have laws which fundementally state that a householder can protect themselves in almost whatever way they see fit in their own homes.
True there are some limitations.
The US has some limitations which are reflective of when their laws were first created.
South Africa, being a country that created their laws in a time of great sociological violence hold, quite simply (in a nutshell), if someone entrs your house (or lands) uninvited, you can shot them dead. As long as their is reasonable cause to presume they are there in full knowledge that it is your property and you have not invited them in, the household owner is not subject to anything more than statement taking.
Extreme? Yes but then then laws were made up in a time of extremes.
British Laws were pretty much made up in a time when the Law was respected and crooks would utter those immortal words "It's a fair cop..." and go quietly to do their stir.
(Okay, a romantic view but in essence, true).
Laws are tweaked and poked regularly, but they are founded on a society that no longer exists, and policed by a force that is unabled to fulfill its charter.
Basically, the very concept of our legal system is broken and needs major major overhaul.
Britain is scared of developing a gun culture, such is the US and SA (and many others) and the only way to maintain this is to "roll over and play dead".
We are in a no win situation and we will continue to see these daft cases from time to time until the powers at be realise they have not only lose the fight but the fight has completely changed and they are in the wrong stadium. |
4 Jul 11, 2:03 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
icarus_101 wrote:
Britain is scared of developing a gun culture, such is the US and SA (and many others) and the only way to maintain this is to "roll over and play dead".
|
Its interesting that your two examples are the ones with the highest levels of social injustice and wealth imbalance in the known universe*...
* there may be a small exaggeration in play here.... And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!
Edited 4 Jul 11, 2:58 PM by Attitude_Adjuster
|
4 Jul 11, 4:32 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
icarus_101 wrote:
Way back when, prior to John Peel having this bright idea about something called a Police Force, if an individual was 'done wrong', it wasleft, neigh expected that that party would seek retrebution.
When we all 'elected' to hand over this function to the Police Force, we mostly gave up our individual right to take matters into our own hands.
That is basically how the law is structured, in principle.
Nowadays, it can pretty easily be argument that the polic force are failing consistantly to hold up their end of the bargain - be it cost cuts or stupid narrow sighted laws.
Laws of the countries who have had to adapt to a modern society when creating their laws - I'm thinking of South Africa and the USA here - have laws which fundementally state that a householder can protect themselves in almost whatever way they see fit in their own homes.
True there are some limitations.
The US has some limitations which are reflective of when their laws were first created.
South Africa, being a country that created their laws in a time of great sociological violence hold, quite simply (in a nutshell), if someone entrs your house (or lands) uninvited, you can shot them dead. As long as their is reasonable cause to presume they are there in full knowledge that it is your property and you have not invited them in, the household owner is not subject to anything more than statement taking.
Extreme? Yes but then then laws were made up in a time of extremes.
British Laws were pretty much made up in a time when the Law was respected and crooks would utter those immortal words "It's a fair cop..." and go quietly to do their stir.
(Okay, a romantic view but in essence, true).
Laws are tweaked and poked regularly, but they are founded on a society that no longer exists, and policed by a force that is unabled to fulfill its charter.
Basically, the very concept of our legal system is broken and needs major major overhaul.
Britain is scared of developing a gun culture, such is the US and SA (and many others) and the only way to maintain this is to "roll over and play dead".
We are in a no win situation and we will continue to see these daft cases from time to time until the powers at be realise they have not only lose the fight but the fight has completely changed and they are in the wrong stadium.
|
You'd have a point if the situation was in decline. But the last ten years saw a drop in crime. A big one. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
4 Jul 11, 11:28 PM
mq1965
UK(DA), 8 yrs
|
DancesWithPussycats wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
"Sit down and shut up and you won't get hurt" probably counts as threatening behaviour. I think the number of killings (where the defendant *didn't* put up a fight) is tiny. I'm guessing at 0-1 per year (out of 3m).
|
If they are willing to confront you rather than run, they are willing to use violence against you. There are about 300,000 burglaries a year. In about 60,000 of them there is a confrontation between occupants and burglars, and in about 30,000 the occupants are violently attacked by the burglars. About 300 people per year are convicted of aggravated burglary.
|
I'd love to know where these stats come from. I can only talk anecdotally, but in my fairly extensive experience burglaries where there is actual violence against the occupiers are very rare - I'd say far, far less than one in ten. Are you sure this isn't all cases where the occupier actually confronts the burglar, which is a very different category?
Aggravated burglary, by the way, does not necessarily involve violence:
S.10 Theft Act 1968 wrote:
(1)A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he commits any burglary and at the time has with him any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence, or any explosive; |
|
5 Jul 11, 12:21 AM
DancesWithPussycats
UK(TW), 7 yrs
|
Home office stats from a crime website
ETA can't find the site now, but here is a news report saying pretty much the same:
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/homes/property_news... International man of mystery
Men are from Mars, women are from Hell
Edited 5 Jul 11, 12:38 AM by DancesWithPussycats
|
5 Jul 11, 8:07 PM
CookieMonster
UK, 6 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
icarus_101 wrote:
Way back when, prior to John Peel having this bright idea about something called a Police Force, if an individual was 'done wrong', it wasleft, neigh expected that that party would seek retrebution.
When we all 'elected' to hand over this function to the Police Force, we mostly gave up our individual right to take matters into our own hands.
That is basically how the law is structured, in principle.
Nowadays, it can pretty easily be argument that the polic force are failing consistantly to hold up their end of the bargain - be it cost cuts or stupid narrow sighted laws.
Laws of the countries who have had to adapt to a modern society when creating their laws - I'm thinking of South Africa and the USA here - have laws which fundementally state that a householder can protect themselves in almost whatever way they see fit in their own homes.
True there are some limitations.
The US has some limitations which are reflective of when their laws were first created.
South Africa, being a country that created their laws in a time of great sociological violence hold, quite simply (in a nutshell), if someone entrs your house (or lands) uninvited, you can shot them dead. As long as their is reasonable cause to presume they are there in full knowledge that it is your property and you have not invited them in, the household owner is not subject to anything more than statement taking.
Extreme? Yes but then then laws were made up in a time of extremes.
British Laws were pretty much made up in a time when the Law was respected and crooks would utter those immortal words "It's a fair cop..." and go quietly to do their stir.
(Okay, a romantic view but in essence, true).
Laws are tweaked and poked regularly, but they are founded on a society that no longer exists, and policed by a force that is unabled to fulfill its charter.
Basically, the very concept of our legal system is broken and needs major major overhaul.
Britain is scared of developing a gun culture, such is the US and SA (and many others) and the only way to maintain this is to "roll over and play dead".
We are in a no win situation and we will continue to see these daft cases from time to time until the powers at be realise they have not only lose the fight but the fight has completely changed and they are in the wrong stadium.
|
You'd have a point if the situation was in decline. But the last ten years saw a drop in crime. A big one.
|
A drop in reported crime and how crimes were defined, Orwell style. |
5 Jul 11, 8:26 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
CookieMonster wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
icarus_101 wrote:
Way back when, prior to John Peel having this bright idea about something called a Police Force, if an individual was 'done wrong', it wasleft, neigh expected that that party would seek retrebution.
When we all 'elected' to hand over this function to the Police Force, we mostly gave up our individual right to take matters into our own hands.
That is basically how the law is structured, in principle.
Nowadays, it can pretty easily be argument that the polic force are failing consistantly to hold up their end of the bargain - be it cost cuts or stupid narrow sighted laws.
Laws of the countries who have had to adapt to a modern society when creating their laws - I'm thinking of South Africa and the USA here - have laws which fundementally state that a householder can protect themselves in almost whatever way they see fit in their own homes.
True there are some limitations.
The US has some limitations which are reflective of when their laws were first created.
South Africa, being a country that created their laws in a time of great sociological violence hold, quite simply (in a nutshell), if someone entrs your house (or lands) uninvited, you can shot them dead. As long as their is reasonable cause to presume they are there in full knowledge that it is your property and you have not invited them in, the household owner is not subject to anything more than statement taking.
Extreme? Yes but then then laws were made up in a time of extremes.
British Laws were pretty much made up in a time when the Law was respected and crooks would utter those immortal words "It's a fair cop..." and go quietly to do their stir.
(Okay, a romantic view but in essence, true).
Laws are tweaked and poked regularly, but they are founded on a society that no longer exists, and policed by a force that is unabled to fulfill its charter.
Basically, the very concept of our legal system is broken and needs major major overhaul.
Britain is scared of developing a gun culture, such is the US and SA (and many others) and the only way to maintain this is to "roll over and play dead".
We are in a no win situation and we will continue to see these daft cases from time to time until the powers at be realise they have not only lose the fight but the fight has completely changed and they are in the wrong stadium.
|
You'd have a point if the situation was in decline. But the last ten years saw a drop in crime. A big one.
|
A drop in reported crime and how crimes were defined, Orwell style.
|
Well if people don't report crime it seems a bit unscientific to count it, wouldn't you say?
Fundamentally though reporting crime can feel pretty pointless, so I can understand if people just aren't arsed with it any more. For things like thefts etc. I mean stuff is insured, and even things like computers are pretty cheap these days, so it's not like recovering items is as important as it once was. Going through all that process is just another hardship for people who just want to get back to what they were doing. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
5 Jul 11, 11:18 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Fundamentally though reporting crime can feel pretty pointless, so I can understand if people just aren't arsed with it any more. For things like thefts etc. I mean stuff is insured,
|
FYI: Claiming under insurance for theft, usually requires reporting the crime and providing a crime number.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!
|
8 Jul 11, 11:39 PM
MissP
UK(EN), 8 yrs
|
After recently coming home to find I'd been broken in to and robbed, I will be defining "reasonable" myself, should I ever catch any thieving cunt on my premises. www.thedivinemissp.co.uk
|
