Four burglars enter, three burglars leave... Householder arrested for murder...

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 03:32PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The is a difference between an acceptance of risk and legal culpability. Both lawful and unlawful actors are accepting a level of risk, but only the latter should be concerned over not getting away with it.

I think most people would prefer not to get in trouble with the law.

What is your position on the law here in California? It is illegal to kill a burglar here for being a burglar, but it is written into the law that there is a presumption that the homeowner is in fear for his life. So, if it can be proven that at the time of the killing, the burglar could have been known to have posed no threat to the homeowner, then you have unlawful use of force. But the homeowner also can err on the side of caution without fear of being monday morning quarter backed.

If I understand you correctly, then that seems like a reasonable law.

Serious tactical fail. As the good judge observed, you have a choice to make. You can warn them in the hope that they will decide to leave, but if they turn out to be violent, you have just thrown away your best chance of success. I don't know about you, but when my life is concerned, I fight to win, not to fight fair, and there is no obligation under Irish law to give a burglar a sporting chance to get away.

Good thing I'm not a soldier then. You should also note that I was responding to the other poster who raised the issue of them refusing to leave, and I was responding to this. Perhaps I would think differently in a country with a higher level of illegal gun ownership, but in Ireland I err on the side of not killing people. If I have time and the opportunity to confront an intruder, I'd rather apprehend them than kill.

NTM

What does this mean(in this context)?

Seachmall wrote: »

If I start on someone and they respond with reasonable force and as a result I am killed than they have done nothing wrong. If someone breaks into your house and you respond with reasonable force (a good wallop to the face) and as a result they get killed (you didn't intend on killing them) then tough titties to them I say, shouldn't have been in your house in the first place.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked your opinion in the event that the person who initiates the attack lives and you die. Should they get away with it or not? Also, you would presumably not expect a burglar to be held responsible for your death if you attacked them and they killed you, would you?

If someone is taking your TV and you confront them and it escalates and they die then that is their fault. They had no right to be in your house.

Of course they didn't, but I don't see how them being a thief automatically makes them responsible for their death at your hands. If you get into a fight and they die, guilt should be determined on the events and not on the criminal activities of the deceased.

I think you think I'm saying that home owners should be allowed to indiscriminately kill intruders. I'm not. I'm saying if that home owner responds appropriately (in which I'm including confronting the robber) and the intruder dies as a result then that is the intruders fault and I don't give a damn. What is an appropriate response? Could be anything from shouting at them to stabbing them, it depends on the situation but at the end of the day it's a risk they accepted by stepping foot in someone else's home.

No I think I understand your position quite well but I disagree with you on your last point. There are only a small number of things that I think warrant death but stealing isn't one of them.

Seachmall · 28-06-2011 03:45PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question. I asked your opinion in the event that the person who initiates the attack lives and you die. Should they get away with it or not? Also, you would presumably not expect a burglar to be held responsible for your death if you attacked them and they killed you, would you?

The person who attacks and kills me on the street puts me in that position. The person who breaks into my house puts themselves in that position.

Of course they didn't, but I don't see how them being a thief automatically makes them responsible for their death at your hands. If you get into a fight and they die, guilt should be determined on the events and not on the criminal activities of the deceased.

If they put me in a position where I feel the need to reasonably defend myself or my property (both of which I'm legally [and morally imo] entitled to do) and they die as a result of that choice (a choice they made) then they are responsible for their own death.

No I think I understand your position quite well but I disagree with you on your last point. There are only a small number of things that I think warrant death but stealing isn't one of them.

If someone breaks into your house and you catch them taking your TV do you let them take it and return for seconds while you call the gardai or do you act to get them out of your house ASAP?

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 04:19PM

Seachmall wrote: »

The person who attacks and kills me on the street puts me in that position. The person who breaks into my house puts themselves in that position.
If they put me in a position where I feel the need to reasonably defend myself or my property (both of which I'm legally [and morally imo] entitled to do) and they die as a result of that choice (a choice they made) then they are responsible for their own death.

I think our disagreement comes down to the fact that you consider burglary, in the middle of the night and not necessarily knowing there are people upstairs, an initiation of violence in the same way that striking someone is and thus once someone enters your house, you are for all intents and purposes in a self-defence situation. Am I right? I don't consider the act of breaking and entering anything other than what it is, until of course it escalates.

If someone breaks into your house and you catch them taking your TV do you let them take it and return for seconds while you call the gardai or do you act to get them out of your house ASAP?

If I found myself facing a robber with one of my possessions in their hands, I'd probably tell them to drop it. If I felt threatened, for instance if they had a weapon of some sort, then I would attack them. However I would do the same no matter where I was. I don't feel entitled to hit someone because I'm at home.

Seachmall · 28-06-2011 04:30PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I think our disagreement comes down to the fact that you consider burglary, in the middle of the night and not necessarily knowing there are people upstairs, an initiation of violence in the same way that striking someone is and thus once someone enters your house, you are for all intents and purposes in a self-defence situation. Am I right? I don't consider the act of breaking and entering anything other than what it is, until of course it escalates.

That's pretty much it, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter.

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 04:40PM

Seachmall wrote: »

That's pretty much it, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter.

I don't agree to that! I'm joking of course. It's been a great chat and I'm glad we were at least able to identify our disagreement.

Manic Moran · 28-06-2011 05:01PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Good thing I'm not a soldier then. You should also note that I was responding to the other poster who raised the issue of them refusing to leave, and I was responding to this. Perhaps I would think differently in a country with a higher level of illegal gun ownership, but in Ireland I err on the side of not killing people. If I have time and the opportunity to confront an intruder, I'd rather apprehend them than kill.

Irrelevant. I didn't say anything in this context about killing the burglar, only about winning. Your chance of successfully apprehending the individual will decrease dramatically if you give them a bit of warning that you're about to do so. Your chance of surviving the next three minutes unharmed if the individual in question is not inclined to leave will similarly decrease dramatically if you give them advance notice of your presence no matter if your desire is to scare them off, capture them, or outright kill them.

Let me put this another way. Your intents, desires, and morals are completely irrelevant to the burglar. He is either inclined to engage you, or not, and you have no way of knowing which until after the first move is made. If he 'is of violent disposition', as the judge put it, you're suddenly in a heap of trouble because you threw away your advantage out of concern for someone who has willingly and unlawfully violated you and already demonstrated a lack of concern for social norms, the law, and others.

You have three practical alternatives when you become aware of a burglar.

1) Hide, do not indicate your presence at all, and hope he goes away or the police come before he/they find/s you. I am not a fan of this, as you have relinquished all control of the situation and become a passive observer.
2) Attempt to scare off the burglar, with the intention of never starting physical contact. Only do this when you have a supreme defensive position, such as the top of the stairs, or the attic as mentioned by a previous poster.
3) Attempt to physically end the threat to your home. Not necessarily to kill him, but use whatever force is necessary.

One which I submit is not a viable course of action is the attempt to scare off the burglar, with the intent of then starting physical contact should this not work. This has now become a 'fair fight', which you have an excellent chance of losing. And by the way, you have offered to the other guy to throw the first punch.

What does this mean(in this context)?

That I have reached the end of my post, and that my entire message loaded successfully. A hangover from my email practice of yore.

Also, you would presumably not expect a burglar to be held responsible for your death if you attacked them and they killed you, would you?

Absolutely you would, and Irish law does.
Yet again, I defer to the learned judge:

Considering the heinous and inherently aggressive nature of the crime of burglary in a dwellinghouse, there is an air of improbability about the burglar, the initial aggressor, relying on the defence of self defence when he has violently killed the householder

<snip>

At Common Law the killing of a householder by the burglar would have been murder as an unlawful homicide perpetrated in the course of committing a felony. In the case of an ordinary assault in a public place or at any event outside either party’s dwelling, scope for self defence by an aggressor against a person who, initially at any event, was the victim is very constricted. This is because of the principle of “self generated necessity”, which, as we shall see, is reflected, in the case of non-fatal injuries, in s.18(7) of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act, 1997:

“The defence provided by this Section does not apply to a person who causes conduct or a state of affairs with a view to using force to resist or terminate it”.

<snip>

From these classic indicators and precedents, and from the powerful analogy to be drawn from the 1997 statute, we are of the opinion, that, since a burglary is an act of aggression analogous to an assault or trespass to the person, a burglar, during the course of the burglary can never be regarded as wholly blameless in the killing of a householder or other lawful occupant. His act of burglary is the first (and very grave) wrong. At Common Law the householder would have been entitled to kill him. Since however the Common Law must be regarded as overruled in that particular regard by the respect for life expressed in Article 40 of the Constitution, it follows that there must be some scope for self defence by a burglar. That scope, however, is very limited, to defence against an attempt by the householder to kill the burglar simply for being a burglar. But the killing of a householder by a burglar, during the course of the burglary, can never be less than manslaughter, by reason of the burglar’s initial, grave, aggression.

Of course they didn't, but I don't see how them being a thief automatically makes them responsible for their death at your hands. If you get into a fight and they die, guilt should be determined on the events and not on the criminal activities of the deceased.

Incorrect under Irish law, see above.

I think our disagreement comes down to the fact that you consider burglary, in the middle of the night and not necessarily knowing there are people upstairs, an initiation of violence in the same way that striking someone is and thus once someone enters your house, you are for all intents and purposes in a self-defence situation. Am I right? I don't consider the act of breaking and entering anything other than what it is, until of course it escalates.

Though you are certainly entitled to that opinion, that is categorically not the case under the law, and Seachmall's position rules.

“… the making of an attack upon the dwelling, and especially at night, the law requires as equivalent to an assault on a man’s person; for a man’s house is his castle, and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault…”

NTM

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 07:54PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Irrelevant. I didn't say anything in this context about killing the burglar, only about winning. Your chance of successfully apprehending the individual will decrease dramatically if you give them a bit of warning that you're about to do so. Your chance of surviving the next three minutes unharmed if the individual in question is not inclined to leave will similarly decrease dramatically if you give them advance notice of your presence no matter if your desire is to scare them off, capture them, or outright kill them.

I was responding to Seachmall's post in the context of both parties being aware of the other's presence. If I see someone in my living room in the middle of the night, I would have no intentions of informing them that I'm there until they realise themselves.

Let me put this another way. Your intents, desires, and morals are completely irrelevant to the burglar. He is either inclined to engage you, or not, and you have no way of knowing which until after the first move is made. If he 'is of violent disposition', as the judge put it, you're suddenly in a heap of trouble because you threw away your advantage out of concern for someone who has willingly and unlawfully violated you and already demonstrated a lack of concern for social norms, the law, and others.

You have three practical alternatives when you become aware of a burglar.

1) Hide, do not indicate your presence at all, and hope he goes away or the police come before he/they find/s you. I am not a fan of this, as you have relinquished all control of the situation and become a passive observer.
2) Attempt to scare off the burglar, with the intention of never starting physical contact. Only do this when you have a supreme defensive position, such as the top of the stairs, or the attic as mentioned by a previous poster.
3) Attempt to physically end the threat to your home. Not necessarily to kill him, but use whatever force is necessary.

One which I submit is not a viable course of action is the attempt to scare off the burglar, with the intent of then starting physical contact should this not work. This has now become a 'fair fight', which you have an excellent chance of losing. And by the way, you have offered to the other guy to throw the first punch.

If someone really wants to hurt me in my own home, they will come upstairs and try to do so while I'm asleep rather than waiting for me to come down and confront them. Going downstairs will likely turn what would have been a burglary into an assault or manslaughter. I'd rather lose my possessions than my freedom or my life. It's also a leap to assume that a burglar is violent.

Absolutely you would, and Irish law does.
Yet again, I defer to the learned judge:

I was asking the poster for his opinion on the subject. If I deferred my judgement on these matters to the law or one particular judge rather than living by my own conscience then I would be a very different person. Not to mention the fact that if we limited discussion on this forum to what the law says, we would have far less to talk about. I firmly believe laws should reflect morals and not vice versa. Using the former to determine what you should hold as the latter is ridiculous and perverse.

Incorrect under Irish law, see above.

The law doesn't concern me. However as chance would have it, we agree on one thing:

That scope, however, is very limited, to defence against an attempt by the householder to kill the burglar simply for being a burglar.

...which I believe was the whole crux of the issue. My contention throughout this thread has been that it is not right to kill someone merely for being a burglar, as other posters do.

Though you are certainly entitled to that opinion, that is categorically not the case under the law, and Seachmall's position rules.

NTM

Gracious of you though that is, your quote seems to discuss the matter of the householder's death, which is not the topic at hand.

Liam Byrne · 28-06-2011 08:24PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

It's also a leap to assume that a burglar is violent.

Why ? They have shown that they have zero regard for the rights of others or the law. How are you to judge to what extent that sickening mindset goes ?

RussellTuring wrote: »

My contention throughout this thread has been that it is not right to kill someone merely for being a burglar, as other posters do.

Why did you use the word "merely" ? Most people view that activity as highly objectionable and would certainly not include such a word in a description of said blights on society.

Liam Byrne · 28-06-2011 08:29PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

So if this person kills you in a fist fight they should get away with it, even if they initiate the violence?

Define "initiate the violence".

Entering someone's house with intent to steal is initiating the violence.

If someone grabs an old lady's handbag on the street and she clatters them with her walking stick, are you claiming that she initiated the violence ?

Ridiculous.

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 08:36PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why ? They have shown that they have zero regard for the rights of others or the law. How are you to judge to what extent that sickening mindset goes ?

I'm not going to judge. It seems that's what someone does when they assume the burglar is violent.

Why did you use the word "merely" ? Most people view that activity as highly objectionable and would certainly not include such a word in a description of said blights on society.

I'm not most people. I used the word because I consider manslaughter/murder to be far more objectionable than any property crimes.

Liam Byrne · 28-06-2011 08:51PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'm not most people. I used the word because I consider manslaughter/murder to be far more objectionable than any property crimes.

I'm not most people either, so I've no idea what that attempt at superiority is about.

I put a deliberate premeditated crime as far more objectionable than something that happened by accident, or as a direct result of someone else's illegal actions.

Scenario 1 : you accidentally broke my jaw in a soccer match
Scenario 2 : you deliberately give me a black eye

You're saying that Scenario 1 is "more objectionable" because it's a broken jaw - i.e. it's a worse injury.

I'm saying Scenario 2 is more objectionable because it's deliberate. Both of the above have happened, btw, and I still talk to the guy from scenario 1 and the second guy can rot in hell because he's not worth knowing.

Then again, I am someone who believes that as soon as you choose to break the law your rights should be diminished (and yes, I apply that to decent people too, having previously stated elsewhere that if you drive over the speed limit your insurance should not protect you).

We are obviously not going to agree, for whatever reason you view an accidental death as worse than a deliberate calculated and planned action.

My view on life is that it's all about the intent; "no foul, no fault". Choose to intentionally foul and you should live - or die - with the consequences; they were your choice.

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 09:25PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not most people either, so I've no idea what that attempt at superiority is about.

I put a deliberate premeditated crime as far more objectionable than something that happened by accident, or as a direct result of someone else's illegal actions.

Scenario 1 : you accidentally broke my jaw in a soccer match
Scenario 2 : you deliberately give me a black eye

You're saying that Scenario 1 is "more objectionable" because it's a broken jaw - i.e. it's a worse injury.

I'm saying Scenario 2 is more objectionable because it's deliberate. Both of the above have happened, btw, and I still talk to the guy from scenario 1 and the second guy can rot in hell because he's not worth knowing.

Then again, I am someone who believes that as soon as you choose to break the law your rights should be diminished (and yes, I apply that to decent people too, having previously stated elsewhere that if you drive over the speed limit your insurance should not protect you).

I assure you I have no sense of superiority over anyone, certainly not a stranger I'm speaking to online.

Nevertheless, your analogy is flawed due to the fact that you are conflating what was presumably the result of a friendly football game that came to an unfortunate end with a death resulting from a physical altercation. In your examples, I would agree that the second scenario is worse, so don't presume to tell me what I'm saying.

We are obviously not going to agree, for whatever reason you view an accidental death as worse than a deliberate calculated and planned action.

I view a death resulting from a physical altercation as worse than the theft of property.

Seachmall · 28-06-2011 09:29PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I view a death resulting from a physical altercation as worse than the theft of property.

But as any physical altercation can result in death are you against using any physical means to protect your property?

Liam Byrne · 28-06-2011 09:33PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I view a death resulting from a physical altercation as worse than the theft of property.

What if the death is accidental ? How could it possibly be worse than a deliberate criminal act ?

Actually, no need to answer because we've already set out our stalls; I incorporate the intent of someone before judging their actions, so therefore a deliberate act of violence or criminality will always be worse in my eyes than something that happens by accident or something that is caused by someone else and illegally puts an innocent victim in a position where they have to live with what someone else forced them to have to do to protect themselves and their families - and, yes, their property, which the scumbag can get their grubby little hands off because they're not entitled to it.

THEY chose to break in, so THEY should accept the steps THEY CHOSE to set in motion.

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 09:48PM

Seachmall wrote: »

But as any physical altercation can result in death are you against using any physical means to protect your property?

Yes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What if the death is accidental ? How could it possibly be worse than a deliberate criminal act ?

Actually, no need to answer because we've already set out our stalls; I incorporate the intent of someone before judging their actions, so therefore a deliberate act of violence or criminality will always be worse in my eyes than something that happens by accident or something that is caused by someone else and illegally puts an innocent victim in a position where they have to live with what someone else forced them to have to do to protect themselves and their families - and, yes, their property, which the scumbag can get their grubby little hands off because they're not entitled to it.

THEY chose to break in, so THEY should accept the steps THEY CHOSE to set in motion.

That's a very long sentence. Are you saying you think cheating on taxes is worse than accidentally running over and killing a child because of the intent?

Liam Byrne · 28-06-2011 10:08PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Yes.

That's a very long sentence. Are you saying you think cheating on taxes is worse than accidentally running over and killing a child because of the intent?

Yes.

The latter is obviously a sadder event, but accidents - as long as they are accidents and there wasn't speeding or drink or a level of careless negligence involved - happen.

Someone knocked down and killed a cousin of mine completely by accident; I hold no grudges against him because it was a genuine accident.

However if someone had robbed her lunchbox, I would hold a grudge.

The difference between the two being the intent.

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 10:22PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes.

The latter is obviously a sadder event, but accidents - as long as they are accidents and there wasn't speeding or drink or a level of careless negligence involved - happen.

Someone knocked down and killed a cousin of mine completely by accident; I hold no grudges against him because it was a genuine accident.

However if someone had robbed her lunchbox, I would hold a grudge.

The difference between the two being the intent.

I'm sorry to hear that and regret bringing it up now.

Anyway, I would still consider the burglary relatively minor compared to the death or serious injury that could occur from trying to prevent it so would not feel justified in striking someone to protect material possessions.

Liam Byrne · 28-06-2011 10:31PM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that and regret bringing it up now.

No need to regret bringing it up, and appreciate the condolences. While I wouldn't trivialise the event, my view of it is proof that I live by what I say; it's also proof that my views aren't based on a "hang 'em high" personal vendetta through experience. The guy didn't mean to do it, and it could have happened any of us no matter how careful we are; it was a tragic accident - nothing more.

If he had meant to do it (and that is something that stuck in my throat as even I typed it, because the thought of someone deliberately doing stuff like that is something I will never ever accept - those people are no longer human in my eyes) then it would be a completely different discussion.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Anyway, I would still consider the burglary relatively minor compared to the death or serious injury that could occur from trying to prevent it so would not feel justified in striking someone to protect material possessions.

Burglary is someone deliberately and illegally putting their choices ahead of law-abiding citizens; in doing so - in my eyes, but unfortunately not in the law's eyes - they renege on any protection of the law.

I'm not saying to go out and be a vigilante - I'm just saying that if they're confronted then THEY caused the events that follow. They could avoid that if they chose to be decent people and not the scum that they are.

As I said, the difference between whether something is acceptable or not is the intent.

RussellTuring · 28-06-2011 11:54PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No need to regret bringing it up, and appreciate the condolences. While I wouldn't trivialise the event, my view of it is proof that I live by what I say; it's also proof that my views aren't based on a "hang 'em high" personal vendetta through experience. The guy didn't mean to do it, and it could have happened any of us no matter how careful we are; it was a tragic accident - nothing more.

Well I can certainly respect someone who lives by what they say. My point was that I think judging someone on intents alone and not their actions is not always wise. However as I said already, I don't actually think unintentionally killing someone following a physical struggle is the same as an accidental death.

If he had meant to do it (and that is something that stuck in my throat as even I typed it, because the thought of someone deliberately doing stuff like that is something I will never ever accept - those people are no longer human in my eyes) then it would be a completely different discussion.

Of course. But what if he had done it because he was trying to stop the child from doing something he shouldn't? For instance if they were trying to stop the child from trespassing. Would it still be the child's fault?

Burglary is someone deliberately and illegally putting their choices ahead of law-abiding citizens; in doing so - in my eyes, but unfortunately not in the law's eyes - they renege on any protection of the law.

Indeed but when someone decides to burgle a house they don't necessarily intend to end it with a fight. In fact I'd imagine that most of the time they would rather avoid it. When someone attacks another person, they do plan on causing harm and this is why I would consider whoever strikes the first blow as the one who is at fault.

I'm not saying to go out and be a vigilante - I'm just saying that if they're confronted then THEY caused the events that follow. They could avoid that if they chose to be decent people and not the scum that they are.

Since burglary is illegal, then of course they should be held responsible for it. But I don't see how this guilt should carry over to anything that happens in the course of their actions.

washman3 · 29-06-2011 12:05AM

four burglers enter... no burgler leaves... householder given the freedom of Manchester.......

what a pity this was'nt the title. a lot of people would be much happier...!!

Liam Byrne · 29-06-2011 01:23AM

RussellTuring wrote: »

Well I can certainly respect someone who lives by what they say. My point was that I think judging someone on intents alone and not their actions is not always wise.

Agreed. But the intent is, to me, the most significant factor.

RussellTuring wrote: »

However as I said already, I don't actually think unintentionally killing someone following a physical struggle is the same as an accidental death.

Again, agreed. But since the struggle wasn't his fault, it's close enough for my standards.

Of course. But what if he had done it because he was trying to stop the child from doing something he shouldn't? For instance if they were trying to stop the child from trespassing. Would it still be the child's fault?

Yes. The child should not be trespassing, and it was their choice to do so.

I possibly wouldn't be that harsh on "mere" trespassing because it's a relatively victimless crime; as long as there's no intent to vandalise or anything else. But the fact remains that if you go where you're not supposed to, anything that happens there wouldn't have happened if you hadn't chosen wrongly.

Indeed but when someone decides to burgle a house they don't necessarily intend to end it with a fight. In fact I'd imagine that most of the time they would rather avoid it.

If they GENUINELY want to avoid a confrontation then they can choose not to break in. By breaking in they've taken their chances.

What if it were a guard dog that ripped them to shreds? What if they stood on a live cable ? What if they fell down a manhole ? All of those involve no confrontation but are caused by that ridiculous phrase that's only applied - incorrectly - to victims : being in "the wrong place".

Their choice caused the subsequent events.

When someone attacks another person, they do plan on causing harm and this is why I would consider whoever strikes the first blow as the one who is at fault.

The burglar planned on doing harm too - infringing on law-abiding citizens' rights AND causing mental anguish.

You laughably said that the burglar would prefer no confrontation, but then refuse to acknowledge that the householder would have preferred that the burglar wasn't there to confront. So remind me again whose choice takes precedence ? In my book it's the person who isn't breaking the law.

Since burglary is illegal, then of course they should be held responsible for it. But I don't see how this guilt should carry over to anything that happens in the course of their actions.

They are also responsible for them being somewhere that they shouldn't be. That's their choice, so tough. Choose more wisely and with less contempt for citizens and the law, and I'll stand over your rights 100%

But act like scum and you're on your own.

As I said, those who blatantly ignore other peoples rights have written their own personal rulebook, so if that's the one they choose to use, we should use it when design with them - it was their choice that triggered the events.

I'm sick of hearing about people who ignore "no trespassing" signs and then sue the construction company because of injuries, etc.

You are responsible for your own actions, and if they're illegal and lead to injury or death, tough ****.

You could have avoided it.

RussellTuring · 29-06-2011 02:28AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes. The child should not be trespassing, and it was their choice to do so.

I possibly wouldn't be that harsh on "mere" trespassing because it's a relatively victimless crime; as long as there's no intent to vandalise or anything else. But the fact remains that if you go where you're not supposed to, anything that happens there wouldn't have happened if you hadn't chosen wrongly.

I see. I just feel that responsibility should lie with whoever initiates the violence. Of course, some people would consider this to be the one who first breaks the law; I wouldn't always agree. I don't consider the law to be the final word on what is right or wrong.

If they GENUINELY want to avoid a confrontation then they can choose not to break in. By breaking in they've taken their chances.

What if it were a guard dog that ripped them to shreds? What if they stood on a live cable ? What if they fell down a manhole ? All of those involve no confrontation but are caused by that ridiculous phrase that's only applied - incorrectly - to victims : being in "the wrong place".

Their choice caused the subsequent events.

All of those things happen independent of the homeowner. We're discussing whether or not the fact that they are being robbed excuses them from killing the robber. The chain of events leads directly from them breaking in to their death so it would of course be their fault. A confrontation between the homeowner and burglar has more than one player, hence the discussion.

The burglar planned on doing harm too - infringing on law-abiding citizens' rights AND causing mental anguish.

You laughably said that the burglar would prefer no confrontation, but then refuse to acknowledge that the householder would have preferred that the burglar wasn't there to confront. So remind me again whose choice takes precedence ? In my book it's the person who isn't breaking the law.

When did I refuse to acknowledge that? And laws change depending on the wishes of the lawmakers. In my book it's whoever carries out the action that will inevitably lead to harm. For instance, if someone died of a drug overdose I would hold them responsible since it was their choice to take the drugs, even though the dealer broke the law by selling them. By all means charge them with the drug dealing, but not with manslaughter.

They are also responsible for them being somewhere that they shouldn't be. That's their choice, so tough. Choose more wisely and with less contempt for citizens and the law, and I'll stand over your rights 100%

But act like scum and you're on your own.

As I said, those who blatantly ignore other peoples rights have written their own personal rulebook, so if that's the one they choose to use, we should use it when design with them - it was their choice that triggered the events.

I'm sick of hearing about people who ignore "no trespassing" signs and then sue the construction company because of injuries, etc.

You are responsible for your own actions, and if they're illegal and lead to injury or death, tough ****.

You could have avoided it.

Well if you admit that you will always be biased against someone as soon as they break the law then I think there's no point in us continuing this. I don't think the fact that someone has broken the law is enough to make them wholly responsible for whatever happens.

Liam Byrne · 29-06-2011 10:28AM

RussellTuring wrote: »

I see. I just feel that responsibility should lie with whoever initiates the violence. Of course, some people would consider this to be the one who first breaks the law; I wouldn't always agree. I don't consider the law to be the final word on what is right or wrong.

If it is blatantly obvious that they shouldn't be there, then it's about intent. But I've already said that, so the above is just strawmanning because it doesn't refer to the case, and then you go on to say....

We're discussing whether or not the fact that they are being robbed excuses them from killing the robber. The chain of events leads directly from them breaking in to their death so it would of course be their fault. A confrontation between the homeowner and burglar has more than one player, hence the discussion.

So when it suits you bring up separate examples where you don't think the law is the final word on right and wrong, and when others bring up other examples you stick to the exact topic ?

When did I refuse to acknowledge that?

You explicitly listed a burglar's preference and didn't even acknowledge explicitly list a householder's preference; that's refusing to acknowledge it.

What other preferences should we bend over backwards for ? Maybe the burglar would prefer us to leave the TV outside for them ? Maybe they'd prefer if we didn't call the Gardai ? Maybe they'd prefer if we simply handed them the cash altogether to save them wasting their valuable "working" time searching ?

Where do you draw the line ?

And if you say any of the above are "ridiculous", it's also "ridiculous" to expect someone to let a prick waltz into your house and take your stuff.

Well if you admit that you will always be biased against someone....

I "admitted" no such thing. I said they contributed to the situation in a significant manner and should not have been there, therefore their act is the cause.

I have a "preference" too - that we all treat each other correctly. However, if someone decides that that is not their approach in dealing with me, then I will change my approach to use their rulebook.....the control is still with them and their decision.

So do not put words like "biased" in my mouth. Bias indicates a predefined stance which I don't have. Behave like a person and you'll get treated like one; behave like a thug and get treated accordingly.

... as soon as they break the law then I think there's no point in us continuing this.

I already indicated earlier that there was no point since you seem to favour the thug and want us to take account of his preferences and the like.

I don't think the fact that someone has broken the law is enough to make them wholly responsible for whatever happens.

I do. If they couldn't be there then they couldn't get hurt or killed.

Simple really.

Householder : entitled to be there
Thug in balaclava : should have been elsewhere

No one dies then.

We need to start putting the onus back on those who give society the two-fingers.

I'm not sure I'd be able to tackle an intruder, but I know that if I didn't try I couldn't live with myself for failing to protect my home from scum.

RussellTuring · 29-06-2011 11:53AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If it is blatantly obvious that they shouldn't be there, then it's about intent. But I've already said that, so the above is just strawmanning because it doesn't refer to the case, and then you go on to say....

That's not a strawman. When did I misrepresent your position?

So when it suits you bring up separate examples where you don't think the law is the final word on right and wrong, and when others bring up other examples you stick to the exact topic ?

I addressed the points you raised. They are directly caused by the burglar's decision to break into the house so are of course his fault. And it's not as if I only think the law isn't the final word when it suits me; I don't think it ever is so I'm not being nearly as inconsistent as you're trying to make out.

You explicitly listed a burglar's preference and didn't even acknowledge explicitly list a householder's preference; that's refusing to acknowledge it.

What other preferences should we bend over backwards for ? Maybe the burglar would prefer us to leave the TV outside for them ? Maybe they'd prefer if we didn't call the Gardai ? Maybe they'd prefer if we simply handed them the cash altogether to save them wasting their valuable "working" time searching ?

Where do you draw the line ?

And if you say any of the above are "ridiculous", it's also "ridiculous" to expect someone to let a prick waltz into your house and take your stuff.

So not explicitly mentioning something is refusing to mention it now? Please. I didn't mention the Holocaust either, that doesn't mean I have any doubts that it happened.

I "admitted" no such thing. I said they contributed to the situation in a significant manner and should not have been there, therefore their act is the cause.

I have a "preference" too - that we all treat each other correctly. However, if someone decides that that is not their approach in dealing with me, then I will change my approach to use their rulebook.....the control is still with them and their decision.

So do not put words like "biased" in my mouth. Bias indicates a predefined stance which I don't have. Behave like a person and you'll get treated like one; behave like a thug and get treated accordingly.

You said:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Choose more wisely and with less contempt for citizens and the law, and I'll stand over your rights 100%...ut act like scum and you're on your own.

And earlier:

Burglary is someone deliberately and illegally putting their choices ahead of law-abiding citizens; in doing so - in my eyes, but unfortunately not in the law's eyes - they renege on any protection of the law.

...when I mentioned that I thought theft was relatively minor compared to killing someone, even if they were carrying out that theft.

I already indicated earlier that there was no point since you seem to favour the thug and want us to take account of his preferences and the like.

Now that would be a strawman. I don't favour the thug. I just don't think stealing is enough to make his life forfeit. Surely you can at least understand that position? I also mentioned their preferences because while they are making the choice to steal, that does not equate to wanting a physical confrontation. Striking someone does, no matter what the justification.

I do. If they couldn't be there then they couldn't get hurt or killed.

Simple really.

Householder : entitled to be there
Thug in balaclava : should have been elsewhere

No one dies then.

We need to start putting the onus back on those who give society the two-fingers.

Well I'm glad you can see things so simply but the world is not so monochrome to me. As I've said before, the responsibility still lies with the burglar for the robbery but I don't believe guilt can be transferred from one person to another by the former's law-breaking.

I'm not sure I'd be able to tackle an intruder, but I know that if I didn't try I couldn't live with myself for failing to protect my home from scum.

Why? Do you think losing some valuables is worse than potentially killing someone or ending up injured yourself?

Ficheall · 29-06-2011 02:39PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

Seachmall · 29-06-2011 02:52PM

"If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing or "getting their friends together to beat them up".

"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.

"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."

Liam Byrne · 29-06-2011 05:57PM

I typed a long reply on mobile but it went AWOL.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Why? Do you think losing some valuables is worse than potentially killing someone or ending up injured yourself?

Depends on who I'm killing, and whether they forced me to do so through their actions.

I will not defend killing "someone", however if they have chosen to invade my home and get a clatter on the head with a baseball bat or other heavy instrument (no point hitting them with a feather because they'd just beat me up) and they die as a result, then I'm not the one who caused their death. Their actions, my reaction. Their choice. My enforced-by-them reaction.

If they'd f**k off and stop breaking in, then they can stay alive like the rest of us.

And re being injured myself, I'd prefer to stand tall than allow thugs ruin my life; if I leave them escape once they'll come back knowing I'm a soft target who allows their preferences to override common decency.

Could I die ? Possibly. Would I prefer that to being "a good man who stood by and did nothing", allowing evil to prevail ?

Yes.

If all of these parasites want to sod off to another planet and create their own warped society where they can break into each others' houses ad nauseum and respect each others choices and "rights" then I'd be all for it; I'd even help pay for the space exploration research so that the rest of us can live a normal decent life.

People should have rights, but as soon as they impose their non-rights as preferences over others, they should lose their rights.

I would love if a car "alarm" involved sticking 100,000 volts through the rat that tries to steal it. After all, it's not dangerous to anyone who isn't being a prick, and if we knew that all cars had this, they're thick if they still decide to try.

Likewise if they know they could get injured or killed when breaking in (assuming they're low-life enough to actually need a deterrent, which is a whole other story) then it's their tough. I am not responsible.

As I said, it's an extreme enough view, but I live by it. If I crash at 130km/h then my insurance should not reimburse me, because I was acting the prick. If I trespass and fall down a hole breaking my leg, then that's my own tough ****. If I try robbing a bank and am shot, then that, too, is of my own causing. You cannot be hurt or killed in any of these scenarios if you simply choose not to be where you should not be.

RussellTuring · 29-06-2011 06:08PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I typed a long reply on mobile but it went AWOL.

Depends on who I'm killing, and whether they forced me to do so through their actions.

I will not defend killing "someone", however if they have chosen to invade my home and get a clatter on the head with a baseball bat or other heavy instrument (no point hitting them with a feather because they'd just beat me up) and they die as a result, then I'm not the one who caused their death. Their actions, my reaction. Their choice. My enforced-by-them reaction.

If they'd f**k off and stop breaking in, then they can stay alive like the rest of us.

And re being injured myself, I'd prefer to stand tall than allow thugs ruin my life; if I leave them escape once they'll come back knowing I'm a soft target who allows their preferences to override common decency.

Could I die ? Possibly. Would I prefer that to being "a good man who stood by and did nothing", allowing evil to prevail ?

Yes.

If all of these parasites want to sod off to another planet and create their own warped society where they can break into each others' houses ad nauseum and respect each others choices and "rights" then I'd be all for it; I'd even help pay for the space exploration research so that the rest of us can live a normal decent life.

People should have rights, but as soon as they impose their non-rights as preferences over others, they should lose their rights.

I would love if a car "alarm" involved sticking 100,000 volts through the rat that tries to steal it. After all, it's not dangerous to anyone who isn't being a prick, and if we knew that all cars had this, they're thick if they still decide to try.

Likewise if they know they could get injured or killed when breaking in (assuming they're low-life enough to actually need a deterrent, which is a whole other story) then it's their tough. I am not responsible.

As I said, it's an extreme enough view, but I live by it. If I crash at 130km/h then my insurance should not reimburse me, because I was acting the prick. If I trespass and fall down a hole breaking my leg, then that's my own tough ****. If I try robbing a bank and am shot, then that, too, is of my own causing. You cannot be hurt or killed in any of these scenarios if you simply choose not to be where you should not be.

While I can understand your position, avoiding myself or someone else dying would be of paramount importance to me, no matter what they had stolen from me.

Manic Moran · 29-06-2011 09:59PM

While I can understand your position, avoiding myself or someone else dying would be of paramount importance to me, no matter what they had stolen from me

What was that phrase about the only thing required for evil to triumph was that good men do nothing?

Or to quote John Stuart Mill...
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

If you choose to do nothing, and flee, hide, or otherwise leave the burglar to himself, you have contributed absolutely nothing to society except to further the GDP of the black market. On the other hand, if you choose to confront the burglar, you must be able to take any and all actions necessary, to include killing him, before you make that confrontation. Anything less than that could prove terminal. If, for your own reasons, you feel you cannot go to that extent, then absolutely, don't try confrontation in the hope that you won't need to. That's fine. Even the Army has conscientious objectors.
However, to use Sir Robert Peel's wording, it is a duty incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence to act upon criminal action. Nowhere are the principles of common law so protective of a man as they are in his home and citizens should have the utmost protections when carrying out those obligations to himself and society. Even if you, personally, feel you cannot use any force necessary in such a situation, the law (and I submit the morals of the population at large) do not, and should not, prohibit such action by those who are a little less... caring. Just acknowledge that every burglar removed from circulation by active homeowners is one fewer that may burgle you. I acknowledge that you state that you would like to warn then detain, but I submit that this is fanciful, impractical, and highly risky unless you are willing to do whatever it takes to win. To include killing.

NTM

Manic Moran · 29-06-2011 10:22PM

I would love if a car "alarm" involved sticking 100,000 volts through the rat that tries to steal it. After all, it's not dangerous to anyone who isn't being a prick, and if we knew that all cars had this, they're thick if they still decide to try.

This might work for you. A little less efficient, but far more dramatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDrzMGdYWZc

I could have sworn there was one which electrified the car body (the British Army did have such a system on armoured cars in India), but I can't find the video right now.

[Edit]aha... This is close http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3XDc27RCw

For some car owners, preventing theft means a scrawled sign taped to a side window announcing "No radio inside." Others might opt for a steering-wheel lock or car-alarm system. But regardless of how effective these prevention methods may be, they don't provide what many red-blooded car owners really want: the delivery of real, physical pain to the intruder.

Enter the Auto Taser.

Described by its manufacturer, Taser International, as the first electric prod for the average car, it's a US$250 device that turns the steering wheel into a 50,000-volt force field.

When a thief enters a car and attempts to touch the steering wheel or grab the Auto Taser device, the system lets off a deafening 130-decibel siren from inside the car. A few seconds later, Auto Taser gets serious, setting off an electrical force through both the steering wheel and the car radio with enough punch to "definitely cause a week of bad hair days," says Tina Miller-Steinke, a spokeswoman for Taser International.

NTM

Four burglars enter, three burglars leave... Householder arrested for murder...

Comments