Self protection

[DanielDeFig]

Like someone else stated here, the woman was simply questioned about the knife. Yes, it would seem outrageous from the point of view of the victim, its obvious to them that they should try to defend themselves. But having just arrived, the police wouldn't even have know if she was the owner of the house or the burglar in question.

Their job is to find out what is going on and stop the individual(s) breaking the law, if necessary. I'm personally against having weapons in the home for "self-defense", especially guns since they are too easy to kill with (seriously, a dog could accidentally trigger a gun and kill whoever happens to be in the way of the bullet).

I do agree that an individual has the right to take whatever measurements to defend themselves, in an extreme situation (EXTREME. If the burglar/criminals are not going to kill you don't grab weapons and give them a reason to). And i personally think that the best solution is for some form of rapid-response, like the kind that is available in many third-world countries. Though admittedly, it's mainly for anyone who ISN'T poor, which doesn't include a lot of ppl in those countries. But if it could be implemented in the western world, maybe we could avoid this debate entirely.


EDIT:The rapid response works by having an emergency button in almost every room in the house. When one of these is pressed, the guard company in employ is notified and the nearest patrolling car from the company is sent. Their guarantee is usually within 2 minutes, and i have actually seen it in action a few times, they DO arrive within only a few minutes.

 

[Dagnius]

I don't live in Europe but I think that if a person seeking to hurt/take my life entered my home anywhere in the world... They'd have either my S.K.S or Nagant pointed at them pretty quickly with a finger on it's trigger. Whether or not they get shot depends on their actions afterwards.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I have a couple replicas and a deactivated service rifle. The rifle might not fire, but the butt is fucking heavy and could knock a burglar out cold. Either that or I look pretty intimidating with it.

You break into my house and put my family at risk, you're not getting away with it. Not that any burglar would even be able to penetrate the metaphorical steel fortress created by our Neighbourhood Watch.

 

[CrystalShadow]

But if you had weapons you would be able to resist the Government! We certainly wouldn't want that now would we?

/sarcasm

IMO self defense is a basic human right.

Legally it's not, though. And therein lies the problem.
Laws are usually messed up when it comes to human rights anyway, but the definitions used legally, (when a country actually bothers to do so) would be these:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

This lists more detail, though possibly more specific to Europe.
(and it might explain some of the laws here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Notice that 'self defense' is NOT a human right - Rather it is a subset of the 'right to life'.

What this means, is that self defense is ONLY acceptable in a situation in which you, or someone else is under threat yourself.
Sure, when defending your property, that becomes a bit of a grey area, but it is not a right in and of itself.

I think if someone breaks into your house they leave their human rights at the door. Unless you're gonna go Resivoir Dogs on them I beleive it's an acceptable response to home invasion.

That subverts the very meaning of 'human rights' to begin with though.
The very idea is based on the notion that you should not be able to arbitrarily take away another person's rights. (for very good reasons).

It might seem a reasonable perspective at the level you are suggesting, but that's typically a good starting point for what would generally be known as a 'slippery slope' argument.

Obviously, you can't give everyone their rights all the time without messing the whole idea up in the first place. But you have to be incredibly careful with when, why and how it becomes alright to take someone else's rights from them.

Consider this statement from the very beginning of what I just linked to:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"

This tends to imply that you cannot 'lose' your rights because you did something bad.


Even so, the UK and many European laws ARE somewhat messed up in how easily you can get in trouble for what in most cases is a perfectly reasonable response to a rather threatening situation

 

[Thedayrecker]

The united states is better with this. You can kill someone if there is reason to think the person will murder/stab/rape/kidnap you. If it seems that you can get him without lethal force, you have to (doesn't mean you can't hurt him). If he is running away with your stuff, you cannot shoot him though.

Yes, but in the situation described in the OP, shooting out your window, at a bunch of kids for wrecking your shed, probably isn't defendable in court.

 

[Sovvolf]

Well if some one ever broke into my house... I'd run down the stair way screaming samurai style while slashing around with my longsword. I'm very much doubting I'd have to do more then that. I imagine the common crook would be out the door as soon as the screaming started. Those that are a little more brave may stand the screaming but I'm doubting they are going to be stood there standing strong when what looks to be a psychopath is running at them screaming while wielding a longsword.

That said... No... It's not all that good. We don't really seem to have the right to defend our selves. Though saying that, I did hear of another case where a fellow got away with the manslaughter charge. Some drugged up thug came into the house with a knife and threatened to kill the fellows son and rape his wife... So the fellow defended him self with a Katana. I'm sure he killed the thug. Any how, he got let off with it so I guess the law isn't too bad. I guess you just need to be able to proof you acted with reasonable cause.

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

Meh, I'm a cheeseburger inhaling yank. Someone breaks into my house, he'll be lucky to get off with broken bones.

Hehe, same here. That's one thing I love about America.

EDIT: Accidetally clicked post: added content.

 

[Kortney]

I think self-defense is about the only thing I'm really conservative about. I believe that it's a persons right to defend their own home, and if there is threat of death involved, then they have the right to respond in kind.

I agree, but the average joe with severe amounts of adrenaline and freight in his blood is not a good enough judge to decide whether or not to use force. That's where the issue comes in. Many people have been killed for simply stealing from a house with no intention of hurting anyone. I know you can easily wash your hands with it and say "serve them right" but they didn't deserve to die. I agree (mostly) with the current police advice.

 

[SimuLord]

This is why I'm against gun control and in favor of Castle Doctrine. Lie back and think of England, Britishers, you and your "gun-free" society demonstrating the American maxim that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Try that in Nevada and you'll consider yourself lucky if you get shot because that means you're dead quicker. Break into my house unarmed and I'll figure this out and torture you with a chef's knife.

 

[Dragunai]

But if you had weapons you would be able to resist the Government! We certainly wouldn't want that now would we?

/sarcasm

IMO self defense is a basic human right.

The Americans seem to agree ^^

 

[ReaperzXIII]

I live in Britain but if someone brandishes a weapon and attempts to attack me, they will die, there is no question, if I incapacitate them there is still the risk of attack or them coming back for you later, so if they bring out a weapon they die. I mean the fact is they have already shown the willingness to kill you without reason, you have a reason they are trying to kill you, if a country gets attacked would you berate them for attacking back?

A soldier when in danger will kill the enemy and is commended as a hero, a normal person kills someone trying to kill them and they are regarded a criminal seems like a heinous double standard to me, did the enemy of the soldier not have human rights? The government seems to have a mentality that if "we didn't tell you to kill ourselves and you still did even for the protection of yourself and others you are a criminal. Only our guys can kill, even if it is for no reason."

I mean someone breaks into your house, are you going to wait ask the criminal if whether or not they are going to attack you, get a recording and a signature of their intentions, then wait call the police and wait, or when your primal instincts for survival activate will you kill?

 

[Gunjack65]

This is the only thing in this country I have a problem with. If a guy enters your house then yes you should be able to confront him and yes you should be able to use nessacery force to stop them from harming you or your family. But not death. The word here is NESSACCERY.
A while back, here in britain a man was put in prison for murdering a burgler with a baseball bat. Rightly so, there is no fucking excuse to murder sombody. Still this is a shakey subject, if the person intended to kill you then I would still say dont kill unless no other alternative. Incapacitate.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

That's why I'm proud to be an American. I live in Florida, a red state, and we're allowed to own several guns and we can shoot others in self defense. Though most of the time, all you have to do is pull out a gun and your assailant will scatter. Nothing says 'shit just got real' like pulling a piece.

 

[Kortney]

If you kill someone in your house in this country, even if the person intends to kill you, and displays this intent, even if the person has a previous criminal record of serious crimes, and even if you are left with no other options other than be killed, you will still go to jail for murder.

Nah, that's not true. Self defense is a complete defence to a crime in Ireland, like the overwhelming majority of Western society states.

Doesn't matter who you are or where you are, if the court finds that you used lethal force in a defence against a clear threat to your life, you will not be punished. Granted, it's not always simple proving that but I'd be extremely confident if I was in that situation that I wouldn't be facing gaol. If you are in a position where hiding (or walking away) and waiting for the police is completely not an option, and you are about to be harmed - you are 100% allowed to attack to defend yourself.

The thing is, the majority of cases like this aren't like that. The majority of cases involves a thief in someones home, and the home owner confronting them. Then either the thief feels threatened and he attacks, or the home owner feels threatened and he attacks. If you kill someone in that situation, then you deserve to be imprisoned in my books. And the law's books.