|
13 Nov 01 - 02:52 PM (#591764) Subject: The right to kill?? From: Red Eye Yes I am a musucian and play a variety of instruments. I writ my own songs and to gain inspiration for them listen to all aspects od debate for innovation. We have a case going on here in England, where a farmer, Tony Martin, has been found guilty of murdering an intruder in his farmhouse late one night. He has since been cleared of murder and the sentence reduced to seven years in prison for manslaughter. In America I believe that you have the right to defend your property against intruders upto the point of even killing them? Is this correct? Please inform. Red Eye. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:02 PM (#591776) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST This might help you mate. Cooper VS. Terrorism by Jeff Cooper So here we are in the "Age of Extortion." Our local friendly felons have finally discovered what has long been taken for granted in what we used to call "more backward countries"—that crime does pay—in millions. All you need to do is threaten to do something terrible and people will throw money at you. You don't need any particular talent or skill to get rich this way, and you don't need education or training. The only requisite is nastiness, and that is no rare quality. We can speculate at length upon why this foulness has come upon us so strikingly at this point in our history, but I doubt that any incontrovertible conclusion will result. My own suggestion is simply overpopulation. Like rats, we get testier as we get crowded. By simple arithmetic, if the proportion of goblins to people in our society remains constant, doubling our population doubles the number of goblins. And they reinforce each other as their numbers rise. But such speculation is academic. We have the problem; never mind why. What shall we do about it? In a socialist atmosphere, the immediate response is to hand the problem to the state. Pass a law! Any law. Just so you can say that something has been done. And above all, spend money. We have come to assume that the more money we spend on a problem, the quicker it will go away. Now it is quite true that the state can indeed abolish extortion, terrorism, and crime. History offers many examples of nations in which none of these things existed. We can start with Senacherib of Assyria and browse on up to Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. An iron fist will do it. That's the state's simple and effective answer to disorderly conduct. If you want it arranged so that the state will protect you, you can do so. What you give up in return is your liberty. No deal. The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand—YOU! How often is our intelligence insulted by the fatuous claim that we should rely on the police for our physical security! I cannot believe that the people who advance this idea believe it themselves. The police do indeed abort a certain amount of violent crime by their coincidental presence on the scene, and that's fine. But to tell us that all we have to do is call a cop when confronted by a troll is to talk like a fool—and those who tell us this know it. The "in" crime today is kidnapping. The police have never prevented a kidnapping. Not once. On the other hand, the intended victim often has. You don't hear much about these latter episodes, because a crime that does not take place is not newsworthy, but it is my business to know about such things and I keep track of them as best I may, and there have been at least a dozen instances brought to my attention in the last two years. Hiring other people, public or private, to protect yourself, is perhaps not totally futile, but it must never be considered more than marginally effective. Both policemen and bodyguards can be suborned, and skill levels are problematical. Pistol skill is not something to count on in a hired hand. Two recent examples stand out because they were caught by television cameras. These were the attempts on Governor Wallace and Imelda Marcos. In each case, guards were plentiful, and armed, but not sufficiently skilled. In each case, there was plenty of time to hit the attacker before he acted, but those responsible reacted only afterward. On the other hand, the intended victim can seek his own skill level, and he can put it to use more quickly than any other person when he suddenly finds that he himself is a target. Your best protector is you! Apart from the skill factor, there is the matter of reliability. A man you hire to protect you can be hired by somebody else not to. It is nerve-wracking to be dogged about by armed men on your daily rounds, and it is also both conspicuous and un-private. Some years ago, I undertook to train the personal guard of a certain chief of state in pistolcraft. When the course was completed, I was able to address my client thus: "Your excellency, 24 of your 28 men are now distinctly more efficient with their sidearms than the generality of those who guard the President of the United States. They are very good, but I don't know who they are—I hope you do." He knew what I meant. One of his predecessors in office had been murdered by one of his own guards. Of my students who previously employed bodyguards, most now do not, except as car watchers. Your best protector is you! Still we hear, over and over again, that we should not be armed, that we should not resist, that we should rely on the police for our personal safety—that our best answer to violence is to give up. Such drivel demands a stronger stomach than mine. One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy. Your best protector is you! The obvious way to eradicate crime is to eradicate criminals, but neither the lawgivers nor the constabulary seem inclined to do this. The man who elects to prey upon society deserves no consideration from society. If he survives his act of violence, he rates a fair trial—but only to be sure that there has been no mistake about his identity. If he is killed in the act, there can be little doubt about whose act it was. But we don't want a "Porfiriato," in which the police simply shoot all suspects out of hand. Such a regime may indeed have a certain austere appeal in today's climate of urban chaos, but to trade one's liberty for security is to sell one's soul to the devil, as Ben Franklin noted. And, to quote James Burnham, it is both our lives and our liberties that are at stake. Laws are not the answer. We have laws against murder. We have laws against kidnapping. We have laws against extortion. And murder, kidnapping, and extortion are on the rise. The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. Let the thug take his chances with an alert, prepared, and angry citizenry. It may very well spoil his whole career. This is not a call for vigilantism: It is a call for self-reliance. For those who feel short on self-reliance, I have a suggestion. Take up practical pistol shooting as a recreation. It is a good game. It is fun. It is "relevant." And it does wonders for your self-reliance. Your best protector is—as it always has been—you! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:09 PM (#591786) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST,Colt .38 It varies. In some states, one cannot use lethal force, even in their own home, unless they can demonstrate that their back was literally against the wall. In other states, one has considerable latitude in shooting intruders IF they are completely inside the home. When i was in high school in Texas, our house was robbed. The investigating officer told us that a robber had to be in the house to be shot. If not, he suggested killing the robber and dragging the body in the house to make it legal. A very helpful chap. In other states, I believe that one can use lethal force to defend property outside of the house. Happy hunting.... |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:12 PM (#591787) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST I think that we should celebrate the fact that despite the temporary loss of liberty, at least this farmer can be got out of prison. It is much harder to release him from the grave! However, why was he convicted of manslaughter? did he kill a fleeing criminal? I hope England will reverse its present trend of "die if you must but dont fight back" attitude; it really does make one wonder what happened to the "Bulldog breed" |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:12 PM (#591789) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Kim C In Tennessee you can shoot someone in your house. You cannot shoot them if they are running away. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:19 PM (#591792) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: catspaw49 Yeah, you can shoot the livin' shit out of them here. No problem. But if you kill them leave the body alone. Don't take out your anger on them after they're dead like by beating the carcass with a club or something. We have a law against that...."Abuse of a Corpse." I'm not kidding...it's a real law. Spaw |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:20 PM (#591793) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: kendall Well, Guest, that was quite a mouthful. I agree with most of it, but, I always bridle at that meaningless phrase, "bleeding heart". What the hell is so awful about having concern for your fellow man? Your statement about the police is right on, they are not obligated to protect any indivdual. They cant. As for body guards, most of us cant afford that, and, the only one I know who is totally trustworthy, is me. In my state, you need only convince a jury that you believed your life to be in danger to get away with killing another person. Just recently, one scum bag shot and killed three other scum bags who, he said, were a threat to his life. One was urinating on the guys lawn, another was sitting in his car. The shooter walked. Juries are made of people who are sick and tired of crime, so, even though none of these men were worth the powder to blow them to hell, they were still human beings, and, entitled to be treated as such.It's a sad place we have come to when that kind of justice is common. Man is a lot closer to the apes than to the angels. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:23 PM (#591795) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Larry124 The "right" is subject to review, on behalf of the community, by prosecutor, judge and jury. So it's a right that must be exercised very very carefully. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:34 PM (#591806) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Rick Fielding I used to be very against the general populace being armed. Today, I'd feel comfortable having a firearm....but I still would trust the REST of the poulation! Now if I was the one to hand out the permits......... Rick |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:41 PM (#591812) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST Let me see...Three scumbags dead, one walks away... hmmm sounds sad to me... pity the dead scumbags were unable to exercise their rights, and mortally wound their assailant. I suppose it will not be long before someone takes out the survivor in a revenge killing? I heard one police officer state that he hates to see drug dealers get put in prison; apparently they live longer if put in prison. Subjective law/reasoning I guess? |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:46 PM (#591817) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Rick Fielding Ayee Chiwawa! In my (semi) joke posting I mean't to say "I still WOULDN'T trust the rest of the population". Poof-read you idiot! ick Feldman |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:48 PM (#591819) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST Dear ick feldman. lol.. I trust my neighbours and have done for many years without worry.. Most of them have guns in the house. (yes I live in Canada too) |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:49 PM (#591821) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Little Hawk GUEST is quite correct in pointing out that the police cannot protect you (most of the time) nor can laws protect you. What can best protect you is a certain measure of common sense. I leave it to each one of you how you go about using it...that's your decision, not mine. However, the only certain way to achieve absolute safety from attack is to do a pre-emptive strike and kill all the other people on the planet. Get them before they have a chance to get you! For further details on this, consult the ancient Welsh self-defence technique of Lapp-Goch, which used to be advertised in some satirical magazine way back when... :-) Ooooo...it's lonely at the top! - LH |
|
13 Nov 01 - 03:50 PM (#591822) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST A couple of silly young kids, one of them only 15, sneaking into his house at night. He shot them in the back, and didn't make any effort to get help. Didn't call the poice or anything.
On appeal it was decided that it was manslaughter, because he was nuts, which is probably fair, because he pretty clearly was.
A tragedy for everyone involved. Not something to gloat over the way some people seem to want to. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 04:02 PM (#591833) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST I doubt if anyone gloats over a killing except a sadist. However, why should one be anything other than relieved if the bad guy gets shot? They have the right to rob someone else, they have the right to run away when confronted (unless they threaten to come back and harm you during the process) they have the right to surrender and await police protection. Should they choose other options I reserve the right to exercise my judgement and use the final option which will result in their death... |
|
13 Nov 01 - 04:04 PM (#591835) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Deda Here's the ultimate "bleeding heart" position: There are many causes for which I am willing to die, but none for which I am willing to kill." Ghandi |
|
13 Nov 01 - 04:14 PM (#591840) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: JedMarum I do not beleive that the description of Texas law you quote above, Colt 38is correct. If I am not mistaken, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself on/in your property. I do not believe you have to prove the trespasser was inside your home, or even trying to get inside your home. These things aren't automatic though - the police and DA will a decision to prosecute or not depending upon the facts the discover after the incident. Chances are, in most US states that the fellow described in Red Eye's post, would not be prosecuted. Now, if he had illegal firearms, or known history with the badguys - they may have looiked more closely. Typically though, in the US you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself, and in the case of burglaries, etc - the benefit of doubt most often goes to the home owner. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 04:41 PM (#591862) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Little Hawk Gandhi pretty well sums it up for me. Most people (including me) have not yet risen to that degree of courage, but it's an ideal worth aspiring toward, and one that could transform the world. - LH |
|
13 Nov 01 - 05:07 PM (#591875) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Deda These "OK to shoot" laws, in Colorado, anyway, are called the "Make my day" law, after the famous Dirty Harry / Clint Eastwood line. I wish that we, as a society, could shed that kind of role model. I think it glorifies the meanest, angriest, most fearful part of our collective psyche. Just my $0.02. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 05:34 PM (#591893) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: weepiper As I remember the 'silly young kids' were 17 and 29 or thereabouts and had previous convictions for burglary. The farmer was woken in the middle of the night by them breaking in. He had been burgled the previous year and had little faith in the police, apart from the fact that he lived quite a way from the nearest police station so any response time would have been quite slow. I don't think him shooting them is acceptable but neither do I think they were innocent lads just having a lark, they knew what they were doing. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 05:38 PM (#591894) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST Deda.. Have you considered that what you say glorifies the meanest, angriest, most fearfull part of our collective pysche; are also those qualities that are desirable in a civilized citizenry? Protecting the weak and innocent, ensure safe streets; and permit honest honourable people the right to conduct fair trade and business? To own and protect private property ??? |
|
13 Nov 01 - 06:05 PM (#591919) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: SharonA Here's a recent case in the state of Pennsylvania, USA: Guilty Plea Entered for Shooting Neighbor NORRISTOWN, PA: June 4, 2001 — A Montgomery County man who shot his neighbor during what he thought was a break-in at his house in Upper Gwynedd Township has pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. A suburban Philadelphia man pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter Monday for fatally shooting a naked neighbor who entered his home in the middle of the night. Paul John Bellina, 52, entered the guilty plea on the day his trial was expected to begin. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 to 20 years in prison. The victim, Craig Holtzman, 31, was living next door with his parents at the time of the Sept. 13 shooting in Upper Gwynedd Township, Montgomery County. Authorities said Holtzman was drunk when he [wandered outside to take a leak and] mistakenly entered Bellina's home through the basement about 4:30 a.m. Authorities believe he may have mistaken the residence for his family's home, where he lived in the basement. Bellina awoke to the sound of his burglar alarm, saw Holtzman at his door in the nude and retrieved his gun. Police said Bellina shot Holtzman eight times -- first inside the home and then again outside in the yard -- three times in the head. Bellina was charged with voluntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment two weeks after the shooting. His lawyer, Patrick McMenamin, said he pleaded guilty in hopes of winning a more lenient sentence. McMenamin says Bellina is remorseful, but believes he was justified in the shooting. He says Bellina doesn't think jurors would agree. Copyright 2001 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The reason for Bellina's suspicion that jurors wouldn't see his act as justifiable, as stated in local news stories at the time, was that Bellina followed the naked guy out the door onto the lawn as he was trying to escape a man HE must have assumed (in his drunken state) was an intruder in HIS home. And here again in this case, the shooter grabbed his gun first and used it, instead of calling police or escaping from the house himself. It was mentioned at the time that Bellina is a veteran, so his training in self-defense was touted as a factor in the shooting. Anyway, there's one example for you, Red Eye, of what happens in these cases in the US. |
|
13 Nov 01 - 06:15 PM (#591932) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: catspaw49 Betcha' I take a good piss before going to bed tonight! Yeah, the land of the free and the home of the brave.........*sigh*..........I love what this country could be and I often hate what it is. Spaw |
|
13 Nov 01 - 06:28 PM (#591943) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: DougR Hmmm. I wonder if they guy would have shot the visitor had the intruder been a naked woman rather than a man? :>) DougR |
|
13 Nov 01 - 07:47 PM (#592019) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: kendall Doug, that is the best point you have ever made! LOL |
|
13 Nov 01 - 09:49 PM (#592067) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST And for every example of this unjustifiable shooting there are hundreds that dont hit the news where a woman or man produces a pistol and the rapist/burglar runs away unharmed....yada yada yada....I know its not what you want to hear but its the truth... |
|
13 Nov 01 - 10:32 PM (#592098) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Little Hawk Well, yeah, for sure! I'd rather scare someone away with a gun than shoot them any old day or night. Some people don't scare easily, of course, but most do. The fact is, no one specific reaction suits all cases, so no matter what your favourite story of choice is, someone will pull out another story which seems to invalidate your point. And here we go round the mulberry bush once again....yadda, yadda, yadda.... Which story they pull out will depend on their pre-existing prejudices regarding the subject under discussion. To put it another way, what is the most prudent action under one set of circumstances may be complete and utter folly under another set of circumstances. That's why I said...use your common sense, according to the circumstances you are in. It should be possible to see both sides or all sides of a given issue, providing one is inclined to use a little imagination, and not just fall back on an established kneejerk reaction. You can't lay down one inflexible rule to fit every circumstance, without risking getting into serious trouble sooner or later. - LH |
|
13 Nov 01 - 10:41 PM (#592101) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: DougR Thank you Kendall. :>) DougR |
|
13 Nov 01 - 11:56 PM (#592174) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: catspaw49 Well Guest, let's not forget to add in the stories where the guy pulls out his gun, has it taken away, and is killed with it. Happens a lot too you know...... Spaw |
|
14 Nov 01 - 10:40 AM (#592411) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Steve in Idaho In Idaho there must be a "reasonable" belief that one's life is in danger prior to the use of deadly force. The break points are usually, three or more assailants (and they do not need to be armed), any assailant that is armed, and any individual that enters a home with criminal intent (to rob, burglarize, etc.) while the resident is in the home. There are some other scenarios like car jackings and getting onself in the middle of a robbery at a store or something similar but the above three are the major ones. Idaho also requires that before one can carry a weapon concealed one must either possess proof of military service or attend a course designed to teach the appropriate times deadly force would be justified. As far as shooting someone and dragging them into the house - forensics would most likely put you in jail for a long time - not acceptable. I believe that it is my responsibility to protect my family and myself. I've been in situations where I could have used dealy force but opted to hold off and wait for the police. It worked out but someone in my home would be another matter entirely. And as a bona fide "Bleeding Heart Liberal" I think that most of my wires make contact where they should. Steve |
|
14 Nov 01 - 10:45 AM (#592414) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Midchuck DougR: Which naked woman? Many would be welcome. Some would be shot on sight for being naked. Peter. (Now that I've turned 60, anyone calling me a male chauvinist pig will be accused of age discrimination! Haw!) |
|
14 Nov 01 - 10:49 AM (#592417) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Grab Red Eye, the principle in British law is that you have a right to defend yourself and/or other ppl to the maximum extent required for protection. You only have to show that you believed you were in danger to be justified in injuring or killing someone. And you can attack them if you believe you're in danger - they don't have to attack you first. But you have to show that you reasonably believed you were in danger. In the case of Tony Martin, he surprised the kids, they ran and he shot them in the back several times. If the person is running away, you are not in danger - Guest's point that "they have the right to run away when confronted" is exactly right. And that's the reason why Tony Martin is in jail. It would be different if he'd surprised the kids and they'd gone for him, or if he'd surprised them in a place where they had to get past him to get out. In that case, he could reasonably have made a case for believing he was in danger. But as it stands, he wasn't in any danger but shot them anyway, which makes it manslaughter. This was aggravated by the fact that he then left the kids to die instead of calling the police and ambulance, which is presumably why he was given such a long sentence. Graham. |
|
14 Nov 01 - 12:19 PM (#592484) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST,Colt .38 Jed Marum, Keep in mind that my anecdote about the police officers comments dates to about 1980, so thing may have changed. If not, he was probably referring to the fact that a dead perp inside one's house, as opposed to outside on the lawn, is much less likely to result in legal complications even if both scenarios are technically legal. I also liked the point that someone else made about the multitude of crimes that are thwarted without violence by the presence of a gun. These are generally not included in the statistics and thus erode the oft cited argument that a gun in the home is more likely to cause harm to the owner than a criminal.
|
|
14 Nov 01 - 12:45 PM (#592499) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST,Fiver Funny thing about this is that all of this are in more danger of being killed by a stupid mistake made by a doctor or in a hospital--they say 100,000 or so a year are killed in US hospital mistakes, as opposed to about 5.000 by guns--and you have to assume that the person with the gun means to kill you-- |
|
14 Nov 01 - 12:47 PM (#592500) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Little Hawk Tony Martin sounds like an absolute nutcase. You can have a criminal mentality yourself and still get your place broken into by someone. He sounds far more dangerous to the general public than the housebreakers he shot, so I'm not surprised they put him in jail. While the robbers had no respect for his property rights, he appears to have no respect for human life and to be an extremely sadistic character as well. Lovely. I hope that if my car breaks down in a blizzard in the middle of the night, that I do not end up knocking on the door of some paranoid maniac with a gun in his hand and a grudge against the world. - LH |
|
14 Nov 01 - 12:57 PM (#592512) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST,Colt .38 The case in England reminds me of the Rodney King episode. The police were wrong to use that type of force against him, but he was also wrong to get wired on crack and drive 100Mph thru town, then resist arrest. Likewise, I don't support shooting a fleeing thief in the back, but then again it would not have happened if they had not broken into the home. |
|
14 Nov 01 - 01:13 PM (#592525) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: annamill I was living up in Syracuse with my first husband and I was about 8 1/2 months pregnant with my daughter when this man broke into my home. I heard him out there and started out to the kitchen when we spied each other. I immediately went into the fight or flight response. He told me not to run. I was covered in a bedsheet so he could not see that I was with child. He told me to sit on the bed and came over and sat next to me. I told him he couldn't rape me and he asked why not. I told him. He thought for a moment and then told me to lie down and he covered me with a blanket, told me to count to 100 before getting up again. Then he left (taking my husbands saxophone). I counted to 100, dressed, left the house (never to return), called my husband, who came and got me. The point of this long story is, as I told my husband and anyone who listened, was that if I had had a gun, I would have shot him and I was very glad I didn't have one. Of course, if he had hurt me or my child, I might have felt differently. He had human kindness in him and I'm glad I couldn't shoot him. Make what you will of that. Love, Annamill
|
|
14 Nov 01 - 01:42 PM (#592552) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: kendall I wouldn't shoot a guy for stealing a saxophone! (running for cover) |
|
14 Nov 01 - 01:59 PM (#592567) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: DougR Mudchuck: You're just a kid (at 60)! That's why you are so discriminating about viewing naked women. By the time you are 70, you might lower the bar a bit and count yourself lucky to see ANY naked woman! Speaking from experience, but mostly from memory. :>) DougR |
|
14 Nov 01 - 02:01 PM (#592570) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: DougR Now you've done it Kendall! Every saxophone player in the country is gonna be after you! Hell, they will probably place a bounty on your head! DougR |
|
14 Nov 01 - 02:37 PM (#592594) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: McGrath of Harlow I doubt if anyone gloats over a killing except a sadist.(GUEST 13-Nov-01 - 04:02 PM )
Three scumbags dead (GUEST 13-Nov-01 - 03:41 PM)
And GUEST 13-Nov-01 - 03:50 PM , who pointed out that one of the "scumbags" was a child, was me, because I hadn't noticed my cookie had crumbled so as to reinstate it.
|
|
14 Nov 01 - 02:41 PM (#592598) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Steve in Idaho Kendall Maybe give him a few bucks for gas??? *BG* Steve |
|
14 Nov 01 - 03:03 PM (#592617) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST Awww Annamill what a lovely touchy feely story... Wonder who he robbed and raped next? A woman who wasnt lucky enough to be eight months pregnant? A young teenage virgin perhaps? How long did it take you to buy a new instrument? |
|
14 Nov 01 - 04:35 PM (#592693) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: SharonA Pay no attention to them, Annamill. I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through that, and glad to hear that neither you nor your unborn child was physically harmed. Yes, it is a sad fact that those who rob and run away live to rob another day... and perhaps worse. But GUEST, what would you have had Annamill do in the weaponless circumstance she described? Talk the perp into never robbing or raping anyone ever again? Go into premature labor and shoot the baby at him? Call the police instead of counting to 100, and make him change his mind about harming her? I assume the police were called after he left, but there's not much they could have done at that point but take prints and a statement. I'm just glad this "touchy-feely" story was that he didn't get excessively touchy-feely with her. |
|
14 Nov 01 - 04:43 PM (#592701) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: annamill Actually GUEST, he turned out to be a poor stupid robber who was really harmless. The woman he robbed next was in my neighborhood also. The poor dope grabbed her outside her apt. and asked for money. She told him she had left it in the apt and would go get it, but he couldn't come because her husband was home. He said OK and waited while she went inside to fetch her purse. Do I have to tell you he was arrested outside her apt? His picture was in the paper the next day and it turned out he had robbed a few local apts. He had never hurt anyone though. He probably never had it in his mind to rape me. Just wondered why when I told him he couldn't. He went "in" for a while. I'm still glad I didn't hurt him. Love, Annamill |
|
14 Nov 01 - 04:57 PM (#592715) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Maxine I was in the British police force for several years and was so glad I never had to go to an infants school, bend down to chat to the kids, knowing that I had a gun in my pocket. There are not many english bobbies that would want to be armed..."stop or I'll shout stop again" springs to mind, but that's just the way it is. Tony Martin is a difficult case, the law says to defend yourself but only til the assailant retreats and then no more. I'm not saying that this is necessarily right, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Tony Martin was obviously frightened when he heard movement in the house - who wouldn't be, but was he right to take a gun and shoot that young man? Perhaps nobody knows except Tony Martins conscience.... |
|
14 Nov 01 - 06:09 PM (#592773) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Little Hawk annamill - Your unfortunate thief sounds like someone who was simply not mentally equipped to deal with life on any effective level. Such people generally fall through the cracks fairly early on in life. Some end up in jail, some end up in institutions, and some end up dead on the street. To kill such a person is an act of "heroism" I can do without. - LH |
|
14 Nov 01 - 09:19 PM (#592889) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: kendall In most cases, one does not have time to run the burglar through an IQ test before deciding what to do with him. |
|
14 Nov 01 - 09:21 PM (#592891) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST Nobody advocated killing him... the point is if you tell a story Annamill to make a point.. make it a detailed story.. We are discussing criminals who are agressive and dangerous here.. Idiots are usually scared off by confrontation since they dont intend harm or confrontation in the first place.. You were lucky. |
|
14 Nov 01 - 09:31 PM (#592899) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST Maxine, If those kids had threatened to come back with friends and burn your barn down, and kill you and your family, what should you do? Think, well they are just kids and dont really mean it? Call the police, who will tell you we cant do anything till they set fire to your barn and try to kill you?..After all its just your word against three....Or believe the bastards and shoot? I hate living in fear (been there, done it, and dont recommend it)I dont live that way anymore BTW.... |
|
15 Nov 01 - 07:42 AM (#593083) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Grab Guest, you're not allowed to attack them until you believe you are in actual danger. Shouting "I'm going to kill you" over their shoulders as they run away is in a _very_ different league to shouting "I'm going to kill you" whilst running towards you. No matter if they do mean it at the time, they aren't threatening you at the time, so you do not under any system of justice have the right to shoot them. If they try to act on the threat then you can do what you like, but until that time it's just an empty threat. As a police officer, Maxine has undoubtedly had many threats and insults shouted at her by drunken yobs after closing time. But so long as those yobs show no signs of crossing the street to accost her and don't throw bottles at her, they are free to shout. Graham. |
|
15 Nov 01 - 11:04 AM (#593250) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Steve in Idaho Kendall is correct - in a confrontation one must make the best judgement call one can. LH - I cannot for the life of me think of an instance when killing is thought of as an act of heroism. At least for those who have performed this act that I know personally. Killing is something that sits in the head and heart for the rest of one's life. Guest once called me "Armed and Humorless." When armed I am humorless. Kind of sad really but I take being armed very seriously - I would really not like to add to the list of dead people I talk to. I'm glad neither of you was hurt Annamill. Steve |
|
15 Nov 01 - 11:28 AM (#593279) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: annamill GUEST, I'm sorry if I didn't make everything clear. I've never been involved in the gun/no gun threads because I don't know how I feel about the whole thing. This story shows how I felt about one situation. I didn't know he wasn't aggressive and dangerous. He might have been and if I had a gun I would have probably killed him. I'm just saying I'm glad I didn't have one at that moment in time. If the circumstances were different, maybe I would have wanted a gun. I still don't know how I feel about the whole thing. It's a very confusing issue with good arguments on both sides. I don't know... L.A. |
|
15 Nov 01 - 11:56 AM (#593306) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Dave the Gnome My Dads flat was broken into on Tuesday night. My Dad and his wife, Annie, are both 80 years old. It was 2am and Dad was disturbed from his sleep. When he entered the living room he found a young man ransacking the cupboard. Fortunately the robber fled out of the window he had forced an entry through, but not before he had snatched a handbag containing around £25. What would of happened if he had not fled? Both Dad and Annie have Angina and while I am sure Dad would have given him a run for his money, he is still a strong bloke, such a confrontation may have killed both of them. The police response? Nothing we can do I'm afraid, sir. Unless you can identify the intruder we have nothing to go on! Huh! What is going on here? This guy, as far as I am concerned, callously targeted an old couple. This is tantamount to attempted murder. If Dad would have had a gun would he be right to use it? Damned right he would. Should he have used it if the intruder ran away? Seeing as the thief took the trouble to take their belongings - Again yes. What would have happened if the bag contained the Angina medicine that Annie needed desperately after the shock? Did the thief stop to consider the consequences. Did he hell! It is so annoying that the only 'crimes' that the police seem sucessful at combating are those where the perpetrators are, in the main, decent law abiding citizens. It is so frustrating that the only people who whinge about the infringement of civil liberties are those who have something to hide. There, off my soapbox now. Rant mode back in the drawer... All that said I don't think there can really be such a thing as a 'right to kill'. Rights seem to be considered automatic - all these things should be reviewed in context. Just my 2 pen'orth. Cheers Dave the Gnome |
|
15 Nov 01 - 12:55 PM (#593352) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: annamill Dave, I am so glad your parents were ok. Heres a question to consider. If there were a way for your Dad to grab hold of the crook and keep him safely away from your Dad and his wife until the police arrived, would that of been good enough for you? I know at this time there is really no way to do this, but who knows, maybe someone here at Mudcat could come up with something. Maybe a tranquilizer gun that works immediately. Or something else.. Then we wouldn't have to kill at all, well, not right away anyway. L.A. |
|
15 Nov 01 - 02:15 PM (#593419) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Dave the Gnome The tranquiliser or stun gun would do for me Annamill. A a very good point indeed and thanks for the kind words. Trouble is, here in the UK, even that is illegal! If my Dad, or me, or one of my daughters were even to wave a can of mace at an intruder or mugger it would be us who would be on the receiving end of a prison sentance! The world certainly seems upside down at the moment. Or is it case of the inmates running the assylum? I'm never sure sure of the right metaphor to use perhaps I should be arrested for murdering the language;-) Cheers Dave |
|
15 Nov 01 - 02:29 PM (#593425) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Little Hawk Yes, I agree with Kendall and Norton that "in a confrontation one must make the best judgement call one can." That's why no one has one simple answer that is going to fit all situations here. - LH
|
|
15 Nov 01 - 03:47 PM (#593479) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST I'm aware of the difference Grab... but if faced with the possibility they were serious and would come back... I would shoot them. I expect to suffer in prison, but at least my family and I will live. Its easier to get parole than be dug out of a grave. |
|
15 Nov 01 - 05:04 PM (#593538) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow The crucial difference with Martin, which made it murder -it was reduced to manslaughter on appeal purely because of his mental condition - was that, having shot the intruders,he made no effort whatsoever to get on to the police or the hospital or anyone. |
|
16 Nov 01 - 01:32 PM (#594119) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Kim C What sort of gun did Tony Martin have? I know the UK has restrictions on firearms. The thing is, if you are going to pull a gun on someone - you MUST be prepared to use it, and not just wield it for intimidation's sake. And when you shoot, aim small, miss small. People get so upset when the police shoot someone, and often rightfully so - but they are not trained to shoot to maim, they shoot to kill. They don't mess around. And if you have a gun, you shouldn't mess around either. Now, that being said... personally, I would not WANT to shoot someone. But if I believed my life were in danger, I would not hesitate. Mr. Martin's behavior after the fact does seem a little unusual but everyone has a different response in a crisis situation. This sort of reminds me of Bernhard Goetz, at least the little bit I can remember. He shot some kids on a subway, claiming self defense, but there were some other circumstances at work. I believe he went to prison and is there still. Anyone who knows more about it, please comment. |
|
16 Nov 01 - 02:07 PM (#594153) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Uncle_DaveO I remember reading, not so many years ago, about a man who had had a series of burglaries of his mobile home, which always occurred when he was out of town. The police (surprise! surprise!) were no help. He decided on self-help. He built a shotgun trap in his mobile home, with the gun loaded with buckshot and aimed at the door. Then he did what I suppose he thought was the humane thing: He posted a prominent sign outside that door, "Shotgun trap inside! If you break in, you WILL be shot!" The burglar took advantage of the man's absence and, if he read the sign, ignored it, and was killed. The homeowner was convicted--I don't know whether manslaughter or murder. Dave Oesterreich |
|
16 Nov 01 - 11:48 PM (#594490) Subject: RE: The right to kill?? From: Red Eye Tony Martin had been burgled on many occasions and had a lack of confidence in the police's attitude. I personally believe that if someone enters your home illegally then they give up the right to be treated as an equal citizen. Don't rob and no harm will come to you. Is that too simplistic?? |