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 07:39 pm (UTC)I just realised my post was confusing two different ideas.
1. Breaking into someone's house counts as threatening to them.
Since a reasonable proportion of burglars might harm an occupant, the occupant is justified in self defense. Though there's obviously a spectrum: Is it ok to kill someone without warning them? Is a sign outside enough warning? If you've challenged them and they continue to rifle your belongings, but not threaten you directly? If they have a gun/bat/are bigger than you but don't *explicitly* threaten you.
2. Even though their life is worth more, that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be given up: killing someone trying to maim you I believe is justified, for instance. Could the level of intimidation of repeated burglaries reach this level? Potentially...
After that, I am now less sure than I was.