Hmm, I don't recall hearing about this 'People's Parliament' the story mentions, from a few weeks ago. Diosdado Cabello, the outgoing head of the National Assembly, announced that he was creating a new "National Communal Parliament". He gave no details of how it would work, other than to state that it was designed to give revolutionary activists a mechanism to make decisions and manage resources..."The most important power is the power of the communes. There is no purer form of organisation"
There are other issues, such as whether you have the right to use reasonable force to prevent people burgling your property, and what counts as reasonable when you are outnumbered by younger, stronger men. But as it happens Martin shot them while running away. While he undoubtedly did the world a favour, that does have to be illegal. However I think manslaughter was about right, in that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not normally lethal when used on humans.
The problem with the Tony Martin case was twofold. Firstly he had been targeted many times before. So much so that he had developed an acute form of paranoia and had removed his own staircase so that burglers couldn't get upstairs when he was in the house at night. The police had recommended that as he was such a target in an isolated farmhouse the best thing he could do was move. That to me is a total abrogation of duty by the police.
The other problem is the burglers were already career criminals who had committed numerous crimes before hand and those who survived have continued to rob and steal and been heavily involved in drugs and weapons ever since. They came from my home town and when the news came out that they had been shot the attitude was one basically of 'good'.
Now this is not a view I share. I think Martin committed a crime by shooting them when they were running away but I also understand that the police and other authorities hold a lot of responsibility for what happened by failing to protect a vulnerable man who was clearly becoming mentally ill because of the repeated robberies.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
If Cameron can be persuaded to stay, and Corbyn remains in post, the long term prospects of the story party as the natural party of government are very good indeed.
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
Is there any obvious reason why Cruz won't win the GOP nomination? Looks to have the mo outside of Trump; is he the new establishment candidate?
He's not an establishment candidate. If Trump wan't there he would be the crazy-red-meat-for-the-base candidate the establishment would be trying to bury.
There are other issues, such as whether you have the right to use reasonable force to prevent people burgling your property, and what counts as reasonable when you are outnumbered by younger, stronger men. But as it happens Martin shot them while running away. While he undoubtedly did the world a favour, that does have to be illegal. However I think manslaughter was about right, in that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not normally lethal when used on humans.
The problem with the Tony Martin case was twofold. Firstly he had been targeted many times before. So much so that he had developed an acute form of paranoia and had removed his own staircase so that burglers couldn't get upstairs when he was in the house at night. The police had recommended that as he was such a target in an isolated farmhouse the best thing he could do was move. That to me is a total abrogation of duty by the police.
The other problem is the burglers were already career criminals who had committed numerous crimes before hand and those who survived have continued to rob and steal and been heavily involved in drugs and weapons ever since. They came from my home town and when the news came out that they had been shot the attitude was one basically of 'good'.
Now this is not a view I share. I think Martin committed a crime by shooting them when they were running away but I also understand that the police and other authorities hold a lot of responsibility for what happened by failing to protect a vulnerable man who was clearly becoming mentally ill because of the repeated robberies.
Is there any obvious reason why Cruz won't win the GOP nomination? Looks to have the mo outside of Trump; is he the new establishment candidate?
He's not an establishment candidate. If Trump wan't there he would be the crazy-red-meat-for-the-base candidate the establishment would be trying to bury.
Irony is hard online isn't it.
Seriously, though, isn't he in danger of becoming the establishment candidate by virtue of not being Trump
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
At least the numbers were close, unlike last time in your message to OGH
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
That's ok.
But when you start freezing out the ladies, swinging your nuts, and chatting up Rick Astley. Then you'll be in trouble.
Is there any obvious reason why Cruz won't win the GOP nomination? Looks to have the mo outside of Trump; is he the new establishment candidate?
He's not an establishment candidate. If Trump wan't there he would be the crazy-red-meat-for-the-base candidate the establishment would be trying to bury.
Irony is hard online isn't it.
It is late an I am tired.
He's still not the establishment candidate though. The establishment are praying that Trump shows poorly in the early primaries and loses all momentum and disappears out of sight. at which point they deal with Cruz.
There are other issues, such as whether you have the right to use reasonable force to prevent people burgling your property, and what counts as reasonable when you are outnumbered by younger, stronger men. But as it happens Martin shot them while running away. While he undoubtedly did the world a favour, that does have to be illegal. However I think manslaughter was about right, in that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not normally lethal when used on humans.
The problem with the Tony Martin case was twofold. Firstly he had been targeted many times before. So much so that he had developed an acute form of paranoia and had removed his own staircase so that burglers couldn't get upstairs when he was in the house at night. The police had recommended that as he was such a target in an isolated farmhouse the best thing he could do was move. That to me is a total abrogation of duty by the police.
The other problem is the burglers were already career criminals who had committed numerous crimes before hand and those who survived have continued to rob and steal and been heavily involved in drugs and weapons ever since. They came from my home town and when the news came out that they had been shot the attitude was one basically of 'good'.
Now this is not a view I share. I think Martin committed a crime by shooting them when they were running away but I also understand that the police and other authorities hold a lot of responsibility for what happened by failing to protect a vulnerable man who was clearly becoming mentally ill because of the repeated robberies.
I think Martin is hugely more sinned against than sinning.
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
Please tell me you havent used never gonna give you up in your chat up line.
There are other issues, such as whether you have the right to use reasonable force to prevent people burgling your property, and what counts as reasonable when you are outnumbered by younger, stronger men. But as it happens Martin shot them while running away. While he undoubtedly did the world a favour, that does have to be illegal. However I think manslaughter was about right, in that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not normally lethal when used on humans.
The problem with the Tony Martin case was twofold. Firstly he had been targeted many times before. So much so that he had developed an acute form of paranoia and had removed his own staircase so that burglers couldn't get upstairs when he was in the house at night. The police had recommended that as he was such a target in an isolated farmhouse the best thing he could do was move. That to me is a total abrogation of duty by the police.
The other problem is the burglers were already career criminals who had committed numerous crimes before hand and those who survived have continued to rob and steal and been heavily involved in drugs and weapons ever since. They came from my home town and when the news came out that they had been shot the attitude was one basically of 'good'.
Now this is not a view I share. I think Martin committed a crime by shooting them when they were running away but I also understand that the police and other authorities hold a lot of responsibility for what happened by failing to protect a vulnerable man who was clearly becoming mentally ill because of the repeated robberies.
I think Martin is hugely more sinned against than sinning.
Would anyone remember, care about or mourn poor Tony Martin if he'd become just another statistic?
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
Please tell me you havent used never gonna give you up in your chat up line.
'Call me Rick Astley, because I'm Never Gonna Give You Up' is a chat up line I may have uttered a few years ago
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
There are other issues, such as whether you have the right to use reasonable force to prevent people burgling your property, and what counts as reasonable when you are outnumbered by younger, stronger men. But as it happens Martin shot them while running away. While he undoubtedly did the world a favour, that does have to be illegal. However I think manslaughter was about right, in that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is not normally lethal when used on humans.
The problem with the Tony Martin case was twofold. Firstly he had been targeted many times before. So much so that he had developed an acute form of paranoia and had removed his own staircase so that burglers couldn't get upstairs when he was in the house at night. The police had recommended that as he was such a target in an isolated farmhouse the best thing he could do was move. That to me is a total abrogation of duty by the police.
The other problem is the burglers were already career criminals who had committed numerous crimes before hand and those who survived have continued to rob and steal and been heavily involved in drugs and weapons ever since. They came from my home town and when the news came out that they had been shot the attitude was one basically of 'good'.
Now this is not a view I share. I think Martin committed a crime by shooting them when they were running away but I also understand that the police and other authorities hold a lot of responsibility for what happened by failing to protect a vulnerable man who was clearly becoming mentally ill because of the repeated robberies.
I think Martin is hugely more sinned against than sinning.
Would anyone remember, care about or mourn poor Tony Martin if he'd become just another statistic?
No. The attitude of the authorities was " fuck off."
If the authorities wilfully refuse to give people legal protection, why shouldn't they defend themselves?
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Martin's circumstances were that the police were uninterested in protecting him. What do you do when you really are on your own?
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
Please tell me you havent used never gonna give you up in your chat up line.
'Call me Rick Astley, because I'm Never Gonna Give You Up' is a chat up line I may have uttered a few years ago
The Times/@YouGov EU ref poll Remain 41% (nc) Remain 42% (+1)
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
I'm freezing my nuts off, trying to chat up some pretty ladies and swing my pants to Rick Astley and tweet about a poll at the same time, I made a typo.
Please tell me you havent used never gonna give you up in your chat up line.
'Call me Rick Astley, because I'm Never Gonna Give You Up' is a chat up line I may have uttered a few years ago
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
How about a taser?
Consumer grade stun guns are problematic depending on clothing etc and you have to stick the prongs into the guy close up. That doesn't solve the problem.
I don't think tasers are available to the public. I know police officers have to be tasered before they can carry one.
A bullet is a safe and sure option.
If stunned he'll get up at some point - with a bullet he won't
Imminent threat to Munich train stations . Trains not stopping people cleared out of area
Munich police are saying there are indications of imminent threat to trains in the Pasing area of Munich Trains are now stopped and services no longer running. Sky news.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
How about a taser?
Consumer grade stun guns are problematic depending on clothing etc and you have to stick the prongs into the guy close up. That doesn't solve the problem.
I don't think tasers are available to the public. I know police officers have to be tasered before they can carry one.
A bullet is a safe and sure option.
I believe tasers are available, at least thats what a quick google search led me to believe.
Happy new year PB! Pleased I didn't pay a grand for a suite in the Address overlooking the fireworks in Dubai! There will be a lot of pissed off people here tonight, thankfully I'm not one of them, home now so raise a glass to those who had their celebrations screwed up!
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
snip
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
How about a taser?
Consumer grade stun guns are problematic depending on clothing etc and you have to stick the prongs into the guy close up. That doesn't solve the problem.
I don't think tasers are available to the public. I know police officers have to be tasered before they can carry one.
A bullet is a safe and sure option.
I believe tasers are available, at least thats what a quick google search led me to believe.
Assuming they are, it doesn't eliminate the problem. If you taser someone it only immobilizes them for a while. A head shot lasts longer.
If you are being threatened by a man with a weapon you need to eliminate the threat long term, not just for a few minutes.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
snip
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
How about a taser?
Consumer grade stun guns are problematic depending on clothing etc and you have to stick the prongs into the guy close up. That doesn't solve the problem.
I don't think tasers are available to the public. I know police officers have to be tasered before they can carry one.
A bullet is a safe and sure option.
I believe tasers are available, at least thats what a quick google search led me to believe.
Assuming they are, it doesn't eliminate the problem. If you taser someone it only immobilizes them for a while. A head shot lasts longer.
If you are being threatened by a man with a weapon you need to eliminate the threat long term, not just for a few minutes.
Well, you can take the weapon away from them for a start, and call the cops, and leave the vicinity.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
If a burglar in my home approaches me with a weapon - knife or gun - I need to take decisive action to eliminate the risk. Shooting him in a limb or his chest may not drop him immediately and eliminate the threat. A head shot probably will.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
How about a taser?
Consumer grade stun guns are problematic depending on clothing etc and you have to stick the prongs into the guy close up. That doesn't solve the problem.
I don't think tasers are available to the public. I know police officers have to be tasered before they can carry one.
A bullet is a safe and sure option.
I believe tasers are available, at least thats what a quick google search led me to believe.
Assuming they are, it doesn't eliminate the problem. If you taser someone it only immobilizes them for a while. A head shot lasts longer.
If you are being threatened by a man with a weapon you need to eliminate the threat long term, not just for a few minutes.
Well, you can take the weapon away from them for a start, and call the cops, and leave the vicinity.
Why should I leave my home?
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
"The law as it stands is adequate to the task ..."
It is indeed, From memory, the relevant bit of law is Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act which says (paraphrasing) "Any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent a crime or affect lawful arrest". It is the same law that the plod rely on when gunning down gangsters in the street, or someone walking down the road carrying a chair leg in a bag, or, in a Sussex case, shooting a naked, unarmed, man getting out of bed. How many coppers have been convicted of any offence involving their use of firearms?
If Martin had kept his mouth shut when interviewed by the police and had a better lawyer he would never have been convicted.
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
Because that eliminates the risk you described previously? Possessions can be replaced, unlike someones life (no matter how much of a low life they are).
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
Munich newspaper TZ reported that police believed several groups of attackers could strike at different locations in the city.
Baader-Meinhof?
Don't be silly Mr. Rentool, the Bader-Meinhof group are long defunct. I expect the German plod were worried about militant methodists or perhaps, given the location, the Calvinist Liberation Front..
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
Because that eliminates the risk you described previously? Possessions can be replaced, unlike someones life (no matter how much of a low life they are).
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
I am generally in favor of non-lethal, but not if someone attacks me with a weapon in my own home. Eliminate the threat.
Munich newspaper TZ reported that police believed several groups of attackers could strike at different locations in the city.
Baader-Meinhof?
Don't be silly Mr. Rentool, the Bader-Meinhof group are long defunct. I expect the German plod were worried about militant methodists or perhaps, given the location, the Calvinist Liberation Front..
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
Because that eliminates the risk you described previously? Possessions can be replaced, unlike someones life (no matter how much of a low life they are).
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
I am generally in favor of non-lethal, but not if someone attacks me with a weapon in my own home. Eliminate the threat.
Yes, and my point is there may be alternatives than just going immediately for a headshot.
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
Because that eliminates the risk you described previously? Possessions can be replaced, unlike someones life (no matter how much of a low life they are).
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
I am generally in favor of non-lethal, but not if someone attacks me with a weapon in my own home. Eliminate the threat.
Yes, and my point is there may be alternatives than just going immediately for a headshot.
There may well be Mr. D., personally if a householder has a steady enough aim in a moment of supposed extreme stress to go for a head-shot then I would suggest that is de facto evidence he/she was not that panicked by the burglar/intruder/criminal. Two shots to the centre of the mass (less likely to miss) to put the bugger down (who cares if he lives or dies as long as he is no longer a threat) was always the pistol training in my day and I don't suppose it has changed (save for guidance on suicide bombers but that is rather a different cauldron of octopus).
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
Because that eliminates the risk you described previously? Possessions can be replaced, unlike someones life (no matter how much of a low life they are).
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
I am generally in favor of non-lethal, but not if someone attacks me with a weapon in my own home. Eliminate the threat.
Yes, and my point is there may be alternatives than just going immediately for a headshot.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Wait a minute, isn't that what the English are doing in Scotland.. stealing all the oil revenues and all that.....
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Wait a minute, isn't that what the English are doing in Scotland.. stealing all the oil revenues and all that.....
Anita Williams Jazz singer performing in the hotel as the fires started says she was amazed at the emergency response in Dubai saying it was brilliant and she had never seen so many emergency vehicles. BBC news
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
Because that eliminates the risk you described previously? Possessions can be replaced, unlike someones life (no matter how much of a low life they are).
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
I am generally in favor of non-lethal, but not if someone attacks me with a weapon in my own home. Eliminate the threat.
Yes, and my point is there may be alternatives than just going immediately for a headshot.
There may well be Mr. D., personally if a householder has a steady enough aim in a moment of supposed extreme stress to go for a head-shot then I would suggest that is de facto evidence he/she was not that panicked by the burglar/intruder/criminal. Two shots to the centre of the mass (less likely to miss) to put the bugger down (who cares if he lives or dies as long as he is no longer a threat) was always the pistol training in my day and I don't suppose it has changed (save for guidance on suicide bombers but that is rather a different cauldron of octopus).
Training is still the same. Drop him and eliminate the threat- head shot. A couple if possible.
Speaking of possible death, my sister in law will be spending a night at the Brighton hospital in a couple of weeks. It's the sort of condition my wife started to explain but I stopped her.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
Not in the USA. If a burglar has a weapon you can do what you have to to protect yourself and your property. If he doesn't it's a bit more limited.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
wishy washy liberal claptrap, the ar****ole has no right to be there and deserves all they get. I hope not to be tested but I will not be making them a cup of tea if they pay a visit.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
wishy washy liberal claptrap, the ar****ole has no right to be there and deserves all they get. I hope not to be tested but I will not be making them a cup of tea if they pay a visit.
It hardly surprises me that a man such as you espouses such violent views.
Burglars do not have a right to burgle. But you sure as hell do not have the right to kill them if they enter your property.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Certainly if the police were doing nothing to help, then taking out stair treads doesn't in any way seem unreasonable. Certainly if you are outnumbered or the burglar has a weapon then lethal force seems reasonable. After all the burglar made an apparently rational decision to commit the crime, they should be prepared to accept the consequences.
It shouldn't be the case that one can gore to death a 15-year old who is trespassing on one's property with the reasonably-believed intent to rob a hundred pounds.
I think Bill Cosby wants to get a new lawyer. Just seen the interview with her and she did a great job of doing the interviewers job for him, by getting agitated at the questioning resulting in her listing the massive number of allegations against Cosby.
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
Not in the USA.
Thankfully I am not in the USA.
I always remember a sign I saw hung in a bar just outside a place called Fourchon in Louisiana. ( terrible place by the way) It said
Thieves will be shot.... Survivors will be shot again.
Very impressed with London's display. Think it beat Sydney this year. A very Happy New Year to everyone on PB of all political affiliations and may the quality of debate continue in 2016 though with a little less unnecessary language
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
Not in the USA.
Thankfully I am not in the USA.
I always remember a sign I saw hung in a bar just outside a place called Fourchon in Louisiana. ( terrible place by the way) It said
Thieves will be shot.... Survivors will be shot again.
Thing is down there they actually mean it
Is it any wonder that Louisiana has the highest murder rate of any of the states (as of the 2012 figures)?
Burglars forfeit any rights the moment they enter the premises.
Does that mean I'm allowed to murder them then? Can I murder them if I think they are a burglar, but they're actually not? Can I pretend that I think they're a burglar, even though I know they're not, and then murder them anyway? Can I lure my intended victim to my house on a pretext, then murder him, then pretend I thought he was a burglar? Is it OK if it's a stray child who has wandered into the house by accident? Is the death of an innocent child a price worth paying for my otherwise unconstrained blood-lust in being allowed to murder people?
This is not complex.
1) you are entitled to protect your property 2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Martin booby-trapped his property IIRC - taking out stair treads to make it harder for intruders to get away. In no way could that have been considered reasonable.
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
Garbage, if some scumbag enters your house univited to burgle and assault you they should be going out feet first , with lots of wounds, no excuses.
Keep up with that attitude and a long stretch awaits you. You do not have an automatic right to kill a burglar - reasonable force does not automatically give you the right to kill. And that is how it should remain.
Not in the USA.
Thankfully I am not in the USA.
I always remember a sign I saw hung in a bar just outside a place called Fourchon in Louisiana. ( terrible place by the way) It said
Thieves will be shot.... Survivors will be shot again.
Funnily enough some tw*t(s) broke into my sister's house last night. They took hardly anything - we think they may have heard someone get up or something - but God help anyone who is caught by my sister. .
A man broke into my cousin's flat some years ago carrying a knife. She lucidly set out the arguments why it'd be a bad idea to do whatever he had in mind. He scratched his head, pondered a bit, and left. All very British.
Comments
"Remain or Remain."
Hmm. Sounds like an EU ref all right.
Diosdado Cabello, the outgoing head of the National Assembly, announced that he was creating a new "National Communal Parliament". He gave no details of how it would work, other than to state that it was designed to give revolutionary activists a mechanism to make decisions and manage resources..."The most important power is the power of the communes. There is no purer form of organisation"
Well, that's not shady at all. Although it does seem to suggest they are taking the lesson that sometimes the problem is not the wrong kind of party or policy, but the wrong kind of electorate, much more seriously than they should.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/12054618/Venezuela-announces-new-peoples-parliament-as-the-countrys-elite-face-mounting-drug-charges.html
Muslims are rising fastest & the unaffiliated shrinking as a share of the world’s population https://t.co/nWYmhlecFr https://t.co/ILF1mRfsGi
The other problem is the burglers were already career criminals who had committed numerous crimes before hand and those who survived have continued to rob and steal and been heavily involved in drugs and weapons ever since. They came from my home town and when the news came out that they had been shot the attitude was one basically of 'good'.
Now this is not a view I share. I think Martin committed a crime by shooting them when they were running away but I also understand that the police and other authorities hold a lot of responsibility for what happened by failing to protect a vulnerable man who was clearly becoming mentally ill because of the repeated robberies.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/682692332542668801
1) you are entitled to protect your property
2) you are entitled to protect yourself
Premeditated murder and infanticide are nothing to do with it.
You either have property rights or you don't.
If someone invades your property and is threatening you then you probably should kill them if you can.
That does not include shooting said burglar in the back as Martin did. That's just illegal, but mitigating circumstance is that the guy shouldn't have been there.
Seriously, though, isn't he in danger of becoming the establishment candidate by virtue of not being Trump
I think it is going far too far to suggest that 'you probably should kill (an intruder) if you can' - reasonable force to disable the intruder is only ever going to stretch to fatal action under the most extreme circumstances. And those will happen very, very rarely.
We should be very wary of extending self-defence of property/person to include causing death as a matter of course. The law as it stands is adequate to the task - even if it does produce some odd results from time to time.
That's ok.
But when you start freezing out the ladies, swinging your nuts, and chatting up Rick Astley. Then you'll be in trouble.
He's still not the establishment candidate though. The establishment are praying that Trump shows poorly in the early primaries and loses all momentum and disappears out of sight. at which point they deal with Cruz.
If that is 'going too far' then so be it. It's what self-defence courses and gun handling courses teach.
If the authorities wilfully refuse to give people legal protection, why shouldn't they defend themselves?
Happy New Year
I don't think tasers are available to the public. I know police officers have to be tasered before they can carry one.
A bullet is a safe and sure option.
If stunned he'll get up at some point - with a bullet he won't
Imminent threat to Munich train stations . Trains not stopping people cleared out of area
Trains are now stopped and services no longer running.
Sky news.
If you are being threatened by a man with a weapon you need to eliminate the threat long term, not just for a few minutes.
In what possible way is it in my interest to use a taser instead of a gun?
It is indeed, From memory, the relevant bit of law is Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act which says (paraphrasing) "Any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent a crime or affect lawful arrest". It is the same law that the plod rely on when gunning down gangsters in the street, or someone walking down the road carrying a chair leg in a bag, or, in a Sussex case, shooting a naked, unarmed, man getting out of bed. How many coppers have been convicted of any offence involving their use of firearms?
If Martin had kept his mouth shut when interviewed by the police and had a better lawyer he would never have been convicted.
I was suggesting a non-lethal approach, as you seem to think only a headshot would do.
I will sign off for 2015 with the most popular story from The Northern Echo...
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14174245.Father_of_two_stripped_naked_and_urinated_on_loaves_of_bread_in_Co_op/?ref=mr&lp=1
Let us hope it all comes to nothing.
BBC news
Good on Dubai.....
Speaking of possible death, my sister in law will be spending a night at the Brighton hospital in a couple of weeks. It's the sort of condition my wife started to explain but I stopped her.
Burglars do not have a right to burgle. But you sure as hell do not have the right to kill them if they enter your property.
Ahhhhh.....2015 I remember you like it was yesterday ....
Thieves will be shot.... Survivors will be shot again.
Thing is down there they actually mean it