Politics of the Treatment of a Thief

Remove all ads!

IIRC there is some sort of an organization in America ythat will hand you a medal if you kill and intruder.... How sick is that? Although I cannot be sure, as I cannot remembr the source... But it sounds like something some of those gun-wawing wackoes there could do. (NOTE: I do not mean Americans in general, only the gun-wawing wackoes that are part of the nation or something like that....)

Edit: Gods, I am so tired that my spelling and stuff is way past lame.... I have more typos than a werewolf gnawing the keyboard!

Ara
(Still not coherent. Expect typo-rich spam)

[This message has been edited by Arabwel (edited April 24, 2002).]

 

Sir Dargorn,

I am almost certain that your father is wrong.

I had a bike stolen from my house, reported it to the police and if the peson had been caught they would have been prosecuted. In England.

 

CL, you are missing the point. The point is about can you excert physical force on a person wh is committing a crime towards you.

Ara
(Snappishness is not healthy. Haven't slept in 30 hours...> )

 

Oh, getcha...

We have a thing called Citizens Arrest, though it isn't really used cos of the problems stated earlier.

Our Home Sectretary (Jack Straw - the previous one) tried briefly to make things easier for "Have a go Heroes", but nothing of great difference seemed to happen.

There was a great fuss a short while ago with a farmer who shot and killed a kid who was burgalling his house. He recieved sympathy form certain parts of the press, but as you say - the problem of scale of response remains at the core of the issue.

Perhaps we should all live on boats...

 

Cris, you forgot to mention the following:

Tony Martin, the farmer in question, was convicted of Murder and sentenced to life. The conviction was changed to manslaughter on appeal, and the sentence reduced to 5 years which he is currently serving.

As you will all appreciate this has caused a lot of debate in the UK about what rights the individual should have when being / feeling threatened by burglars and the like.
This is the appeal court judgement, which quite clearly states that in the UK the law is that you may use reasonable force to defend yourself, others for whom you are responsible and your property. What exactly defines reasonable force is obviously up for debate, but I think killing may be a bit extreme unless your life is clearly in danger.

The Tony Martin file gives the background and the full details of the case, although I can't vouch for any objectivity.

 

SlimShogun, I could pull that off, I've been down south many times. You forgot the tobacco juice running down my chin but seriously,I hope I never have to use my gun in self defense but I WILL!

 

No state in the United States allows you to shoot someone for mere trespassing, that includes Texas. Trust me, I just did a check of westlaw of all the states to make sure that I'm right. I know a lot of non-Americans (primarily even?) are on these boards so I am just making sure that there isn't a blatant misstatement of American law here. There are enough unfounded fears about travelling to the US as it is.

[This message has been edited by Laches (edited April 25, 2002).]

 

Sheesh,

The only time it is ok to attack or kill another individual is for self preservation only! (In other words---self defense) And even then you had better be able to prove it is self defense.

Injuring or killing another person is serious business and you had better have a defensable reason for doing so. As it by God should be!

No state gives the right to shoot or injure someone who trespasses---just fine them for it.

And, while I fully beleive that if someone who breaks into your house makes any agressive move toward you at all, you have the right to put them on the ground or shoot their big toe off. But, kill them! Absolutely the most illegal thing you do.

duh

 

"Honest, judge! I was aiming at his big toe! I can't help it if his head got in the way."

 

Everyone, PLEASE remeber to never---ever---give Shralp a weapon or enter his house after dark.

 

hmmmmmmm reasonable force......but here is another question (need to save this topic you americans are turning it into a 'this it what happens in america' topic)
If you do use reasonable force........say a rap round the shins with a cricket bat followed by a handcuffing to the radiator when the burgalar HAS NOT ATTACKED YOU can he then prosecute you?

Shralp if you make any sexual perverted comment about handcuffs i will personally stick a pair somewhere in your body where even YOUR mind does not dare venture.

 

I dont think so..then again..i live in america, so i wouldnt know about overseas, but im pretty sure that if you didnt seriously injure them you wouldnt get any trouble..unless the officer has had a really bad day.

~personally..they would be shot in the foot, for coming into my house..or their foot would be broken in some way...that way they wont be stepping into my house again~

[edit] some bad spelling[/edit]

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited April 26, 2002).]

 

Those are pretty stupid laws...letting thieves get away with stealing...
This is where those medieval laws come into play, you know, where thieves get their right hand cut off on the first offense?
This is pretty much what I would do, except I'd probably shatter his hand with a baseball bat.
Remember...

 

My problem with laws that prosecute someone defending their home is this: It puts the rights of the criminal above the rights of the victim.

Breaking and entering is a deliberate choice. Like all choices,it has consequences. If one of those consequences turns out to be taking a .45 to the chest, well, you should have thought about that before you broke in.

How the hell are you supposed to know what the burglar/tresspasser intends? "excuse me good sir, do you intend to harm me? no? are you sure? Well, then, feel free to take whatever you wish." Somehow, that scenario doesn't sound too realistic to me. But then, no one has ever accused me of being intelligent

*Note: I'm not being cavalier about killing/maiming. I just feel it's the criminal's own fault if he gets put six feet under

 

Excellent speach, AMaster! I'm sure most of the people that don't want to take extreme measures don't have thier own homes or families to protect

 

That's how it's in germany:
[*]Basically you are allowed to defend your belongings and use force against a burglar to retrieve your belongings when they are beeing taken away. This so-called possesive-defence (i translate it as good as I can), analogue to self-defence.
[*]So when you attack an intruder in your house and knock him out with a stick him you always commit a severe case of physical injury. You (a) hurt him, (b) with a stick = dangerous tool (turning it into a severe case; however, when you know kung-fu your unarmed fist can be a dangerous tool too ), (c) you did it on purpose and (d) you were not incapable. But you were justified (law points out this as an exception from the rule), making the deed not criminal.
[*]However, there is always the possibility of the property-/ self-defence excess: that means: beating the thief up, retrieving your goods and then locking the bastard in the cellar to go to bed and sleep before calling the cops next morning. That's then a criminal wrongful deprication of personal liberty and a completely new story ...

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited May 04, 2002).]

 

Yeah, the reasonable force deal is the hitch, and without escalation. Its assessed case by case, and there are some cases I've seen where intruders, shot in the back multiple times while fleeing, were found to be justifiably injured. As far as negligence if an intruder pulls a slip and fall while making off with some of your favorite items, its crazy. I can't imagine a statute addressing it, but a thief could sue his/er victim for negligence (a civil suit for $ damages), but the jury that would award it would have to be whacked unless there was more to the story.
In Louisiana, you can also shoot someone attmepting to car-jack you. It was passed in '98 I think, and right after it passed someone shot a potential car-jacker. The scene supported the story and that was the end of it.
There's some other element/rule I'm not remembering here, too, but torts isn't my thing and its been a while.