Debate - Deadly force in home defense
Dec. 7th, 2004 05:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4075411.stm
Normally I'm disturbingly traditionally left, in terms of economics, crime, personal lives, etc, but for once I'm on the other side, which is probably rare enough to be telling-people-about worthy.
Killing someone breaking into your home? Yeah, sounds fair, they deserved it. First I'll define some limiting terms I think most people can agree with to, and that everyone here probably would; if someone's dropped everything and running away, or unconscious, or otherwise safe, no killing; if someone's attacking you, or someone else, anything is fair game.
But breaking into someone's house seems enough of a threat to justify deadly force.
Other things I agree with: *simplifying* the rules sounds good (if they're as simple as some people say, why couldn't they be summed up in a sidebar? :) ); Tony Martin isn't necessarily the best precedent because it was a whole mess.
However, to revert to form, I'll tear some holes in the rest of what the man says. STEP ONE, MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT KILLING SOMEONE IN YOUR HOME BY MISTAKE. While I may admit the moral in abstract, this sort of kills the law in the real world. Step two, it's still a tragedy if someone's killed, even if they are a toe-rag. It's not something to be proud of, even though they were asking for it.
Normally I'm disturbingly traditionally left, in terms of economics, crime, personal lives, etc, but for once I'm on the other side, which is probably rare enough to be telling-people-about worthy.
Killing someone breaking into your home? Yeah, sounds fair, they deserved it. First I'll define some limiting terms I think most people can agree with to, and that everyone here probably would; if someone's dropped everything and running away, or unconscious, or otherwise safe, no killing; if someone's attacking you, or someone else, anything is fair game.
But breaking into someone's house seems enough of a threat to justify deadly force.
Other things I agree with: *simplifying* the rules sounds good (if they're as simple as some people say, why couldn't they be summed up in a sidebar? :) ); Tony Martin isn't necessarily the best precedent because it was a whole mess.
However, to revert to form, I'll tear some holes in the rest of what the man says. STEP ONE, MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT KILLING SOMEONE IN YOUR HOME BY MISTAKE. While I may admit the moral in abstract, this sort of kills the law in the real world. Step two, it's still a tragedy if someone's killed, even if they are a toe-rag. It's not something to be proud of, even though they were asking for it.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 06:48 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think so.
This is an inevitable problem, of course, but should be considered.
There was a bit in the Simpsons with this.
Wiggum: You know, if he's in your house you can do what you like *wink*
Homer: FLANDERS! Come here a mo.
Flanders: Okelydokely.
Wiggum: Doesn't work if you invite them.
Homer: Doh. Go home, Flanders.
Fladers: Toodlyoodly.
It's related to where I was going at the end: you, and the court, need to know for sure why he was there. It may well be entirely enenforceable as law, in fact (the absence of details suggests it may well be a soundbite), but still interesting in theory.