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 07:44 pm (UTC)That brings up another sticky thing: that a frying pan to the back of the head *is* deadly. That is, for everyone but a trained ninja, you have to hit them as hard as you can, or they're likely to turn round and hit you back. But hitting someone as hard as you can is *likely* to knock them out, but entirely possibly crush some vital part of the brain, insofar as burglars have them :) Is it fair game?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 07:51 pm (UTC)when Jenni and James got home and the alarm was ringing, they were understandably wary of entering the house in case the burglar was on the premises. a sensible burglar would have run, but some people aren't sensible.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 07:56 pm (UTC)If running = ok 95% chance and attacking = ok 90% chance, running it is. But if those are reversed? How big a gap is justification?