Home Defense (force vs. force and litigation)

Was watching a AR-15 video on youtube (new fav gun BTW) and someone mentioned how they live in the UK and if your home is burgled, and the intruder is injured, the homeowner is liable.

I can understand and tolerate alot of European conventions, but this takes the fucking cake. Why the hell would the homeowner, defending his/her home, be liable for injuries a burglar incurs while COMMITTING A CRIME? It's just like that ep of GITS where Togusa is sued for shooting a guy in the middle of committing an act of domestic violence. It doesn't make sense! I mean, what other recourse does one have in terms of self-defence? (because aaaany form of SD will potentially injure the assailant) Why does the UK even fucking allow gun ownership in the first place then?

I can understand something like what we have here in Michigan, where one cannot exceed the force one is being threatened with unless one's life/another's life is in immediate peril (ie, a mugging/rape/hostage situation).

But didn't the phrase 'Every man's home is his castle' originate in England. and don't all castles have cannons?

Agreed, if they break in you should be able to chain them to a radiator in the basement and feed them to hobos with bad teeth.

It probably stems from some backwards mentality that those who commit crimes are not in control of their actions or don't realize they are doing something wrong.

Other than that have ass excuse I can only come up with conspiracy theories of information I know from the legal system and mentality of people of certain parties.

I wasn't thinking of something that harsh. As it stands, if a guy breaks into your house with a crowbar and you point a gun at him (at least in Michigan) you're going to jail for the longer period of time. I just think it's logical to use convincing force to make the assailant retreat.

I've always seen it, if the person is unarmed and you pull a gun and shoot them. You deserve some sort of penalty. Nothing too harsh because they guy DID break into your home with intent on committing another crime.

If the crook breaks into your house with a crowbar, knife, gun,etc and you take a gun and shoot him. You are in the clear and should only be bothered with the cost of replacing the shell,slug or bullet and the cost of cleaning your carpet or furniture.

Though, I may be wrong on this. In Georgia, if you break into somebodies house and don't leave in a body bag. Something, somewhere went wrong.

Edit: Now if you pulled a gun and made the guy sit there and wait for the cops to arrive. You should be fine as well despite the "overwhelming force" you used on an unarmed guy.

That sounds more reasonable than what I thought (then again, IDK what stare you live in). I just remember my HS law teacher (who himself was an avid hunter and a member of the NRA (though still seemed to fit right in with the typical Ann Arbor attitude)) saying that unequal force in Michigan was punished.

BTW...what do you mean, "I've always seen it."?



Wah-hell, o'kourse, it be Joe-d'ja after all!

Well do you know the state of England? What I mean is do you know what crimes happen there most often? If the number one crime in England is petty theft, for example, than it would be a problem if you shot and killed them just cause they were going to steal your TV. However if they break into your home armed with a knife or worse, you should have every right to end them right there.

Personal view on the issue. Another way of saying "The way I have always viewed the issue was..."



Obvious exaggeration but, this is the south, we have guns and we'll use'em.

In Michigan the laws are different but, I agree with you that they laws are rather stupid. You have a right to own property and you should be allowed to defend your property by whatever means you deem necessary.

Okay, never heard it put that way before.

One day, some where, a corrupt judge ruled that the plaintiff receive reparations for his injury while burglarizing a home. After that, every other burglars use this as a precedent. It's fucked up, and needs to be fixed... badly.

Well, on one hand it is messed up, however it also depends on what you count as injury. Often in these cases (though I live in Germany), they mean severe injuries, more than neccassary to stop him from being a threat to you.
On the other hand I think that it is a bit ridiculous. When Europeans start argueing about the firearm laws in the states we are told "you have no clue about our police / judical system" etc, however the other way round is fine?
In my opinion it just shows that we have faith in our police / courts etc to take care of these things, so that we don't need to shoot burglars etc.

Jesus.
I don't even know where to begin.
But, I am glad that you manage to tolerate a lot of our European conventions and have thus far managed to go without nuking us back to the stone age for our sins.

Nothing to harsh? Attempted Killing. HEAVY punishment for that.
Basically it means you tried to deliberatly but without knowing ahead to rob someone of his life. Thats REALLY heavy stuff.


Are you crazy?! What if on one dreadfull night you drink one to many? You'll end it up! Be reasonable. Killing someone should NEVER EVER be allowed except for in life defence.
Protecting your property with lethal force is taking it much to far.



I agree but ONLY under self defence, if he has a knife but doesn't even see you yet and you kill him then that is pure out murder.



Yes, in other words, kill every poor guy who makes a mistake in his life due to perhaps debts. Very solid and definatly legal choice. No doubt about it.
Sorry for being so sarcastic but THINK about it before you speak, murder is murder, always, with the only exception being in life-defence.

You guys are speaking way to lightly of the usage of firearms. A single bullet is without a doubt DEADLY and can take someone's life.

I believe it is fine to threaten someone breaking the rules with firearms untill officers arrive but actually using it should NOT be the case lest someone is about to get a knife through the throat.

Where i live, murder IS indeed murder, wether on your private property or not, you are still subject to the country's laws. Unless of course, a warning was given ahead of time, stating that tresspassers will be shot.

I didn't mean it like that. My phrasing was with Europe's anti-loli laws combined with all the reasons to dislike the UK govt. Jeremy Clarkston complains about on Top Gear in mind. In reality I have no large problem with Europe on the whole.



(spoilers giving me issues, response to blackraider inside)


You make points I admittedly was not thinking of at the time. I had the mental image of just, as you describe, threatening with the weapon. But that would still qualify as assault w/ deadly weapon and/or false imprisonment and this is America (land of the free, home of the litigi-shark lawyers (joke)). I concur about actually pulling the trigger, in RL I doubt my ability to do so, but why would a criminal submit under the threat of deadly force if it would incur greater penalty to the homeowner?

I agree with all the points made by Blackraider78 (except from the heated attitude perhaps).

In short, you're either not punished or punished lighter if you go ahead and assault someone in terms of defending one of your rights. Whether it be your right to live or your right on your properties, anyone going against you is considered an attacker. What really matters now is what measures you take against said incoming threat.

Normally it depends on what's being threatened and how far you go to protect. To use some examples:

-It's ok to steal someone's umbrella and use it to save a drowning kid (right violated: property, right protected: life)
-It's not ok to kill someone who's insulting you (right violated: life, right protected: pride)
The examples may be a bit crude but I think the point's obvious.

The trickier part is to know when the threating situation ceases to exist and defense no longer covers you. It's suggested that taking measures to somehow disarm a thug going for your wallet is as far as you can act under the merits of self defense. Going beyond that (p.ex. tackling him down and hit him in the head a couple times) goes beyond defense since he posed no threat at the time you started beating him.

Since the first post mentioned a burglary, I'd assume they'd let you go with twisting his arm perhaps and pinning him down, maybe break 1-2 bones if they resist. Don't get overexcited and bash their head with a bat or something 'cause it'll be obvious you're just itching for violence.

So you are gonna wait for the thief to pull a bullet in your brain or the brain of your kid before you say 'oh, ok, I can pull my gun now'? Hell no man. Here if you enter someone's house, you are pretty much dead if they discover you. And everyone agrees with that.

But then again thieves here tend to kill needlessly (i.e even if you surrender ang give them what they ask for) , so it became a habit to kill them back.

Maxiart, for reference, where is here?

Bang, Boom, Straight to the Moon.

Why, my country of course. Dominican Republic.