An Englishman's home is his castle : Who said British Justice is a shambles ?

[NotAllThere]

Works well for many US states, majority of which do allow firearms ownership.

I did say "Civilized".

..."Kill em all"

You're such a bleeding heart, tree-hugging, wishy washy hippy liberal, Diver. I say kill anyone who looks like they might even be thinking of commiting a crime.

[snaw]

So, let me just understand you:

a) 3 guys in balaklavas meet you in your house
b) they put down your family on the floor and tie them up
c) one of your family manages to escape - this suprises attackers as their original plan clearly stopped working

At this point you can pull your legit firearm and shoot them - you won't?

Now if it was just one guy who broke into house and run away once he saw you, then maybe shooting to kill would probably be excessive, however the moment they actually made family lie down and tied them prepped for execution (I'd think that if they were doing it to me), they've signed their own death warrant - they crossed the line by doing a) and b).

The sad part here is that the system in this country gives no way to defend onself effectively - only firearms can even out the odds and make such crimes highly unprofitable to those who attempt them. It's much cheaper for taxpayer also. Win-win for all apart from criminals.

If you were protecting yourself, in your house then there'd be a good argument for self defence.

If you chased him down the street after they ran away, and someone else held him down while you blew one's head off it'd be murder.

And having firearms in the US doesn't seem to be doing much with the crime rate on burglary, apart from more home owners getting killed cause hey if there's a chance they'll do you then you might as well do them first, no?

[Board Game Geek]

Gonzo Posted : If the rule of law is not protecting the citizens then the solution is to fix it, not to let the citizens carry sticks.

The problem with the rule of law, is that it is a punishment AFTER the crime (if they are caught). It is not a deterrent for many.

Regardless of the existance of a "Death Penalty", or other Capital l Punishments, these again are AFTER CRIME events.

I think most people would agree that they would prefer not to be the victim of crime in the first place, regardless of the AFTER CRIME punishment.

That renders the AFTER CRIME punishment completely superfluous.

If therefore the onus is on the PREVENTION of crime, then money and resources need to increase dramatically to support a framework. Even then, with an effective PREVENTION policy, there will still be cracks through which the determined or the mental slip through and committ crime regardless.

It's at this point, that the potential Victim needs protection and safety, since it is their last chance of survival.

Denying someone that right is at the very least dereliction of duty, and at the worst, aiding and abetting the criminal.

Arm the weak.

[Gonzo]

The problem with the rule of law, is that it is a punishment AFTER the crime (if they are caught). It is not a deterrent for many.

Regardless of the existance of a "Death Penalty", or other Capital l Punishments, these again are AFTER CRIME events.

I think most people would agree that they would prefer not to be the victim of crime in the first place, regardless of the AFTER CRIME punishment.

That renders the AFTER CRIME punishment completely superfluous.

If therefore the onus is on the PREVENTION of crime, then money and resources need to increase dramatically to support a framework. Even then, with an effective PREVENTION policy, there will still be cracks through which the determined or the mental slip through and committ crime regardless.

It's at this point, that the potential Victim needs protection and safety, since it is their last chance of survival.

Denying someone that right is at the very least dereliction of duty, and at the worst, aiding and abetting the criminal.

Arm the weak.

AtW made a similar point but it is not one that I am happy to accept.

For me, if someone is not safe within their own home then the rule of law is broken and that needs to be fixed not bypassed.

I accept that that is easier said than done and I don't have the magic bullet to do it. 200 years ago you would have been jailed for stealing a loaf of bread but if you were starving that would not be much of a disincentive so more draconian punishments are not necessarily the answer (although would probably help a bit).

[threaded]

AtW made a similar point but it is not one that I am happy to accept.

For me, if someone is not safe within their own home then the rule of law is broken and that needs to be fixed not bypassed.

I accept that that is easier said than done and I don't have the magic bullet to do it. 200 years ago you would have been jailed for stealing a loaf of bread but if you were starving that would not be much of a disincentive so more draconian punishments are not necessarily the answer (although would probably help a bit).

Actually back then stealing a loaf of bread if you were starving was seen as not too bad. Stealing when you were not starving or there was other food available was seen as really bad.

Much the same as now actually.

Many cases nowadays that are tried as Manslaughter or Murder would have been tried back then as GBH, or ABH.

HTH

[NetwkSupport]

There is no debate in my opinion.

If someone (or a group in this case) broke into my home and tied up me, my wife and son then they do not deserve to live. They would be killed at first opportunity.

You hear all sorts of awful things (crimestoppers a few weeks ago showed a story of a 8 month pregnant woman who was raped repeatedly in front of her husband and son in their own home) she almost lost the baby and they will never get over this awful experience.

In my opinion, once they were tied up ANYTHING could have happened to them

They were totally justified. We need a change in the law.

[Spacecadet]

happen
However you were more likely to be hung for it.

Thats a bit of a myth. What would usually happen is that the church would step in and give you a free pass.
Of course this could only be done once and you'll end up with a rather nasty brand on the back of your hand so that you couldn't get let off again.

Even back then there was a general understanding that you couldn't go killing people just for stealing a loaf of bread

[sasguru]

There is no debate in my opinion.

If someone (or a group in this case) broke into my home and tied up me, my wife and son then they do not deserve to live. They would be killed at first opportunity.
You hear all sorts of awful things (crimestoppers a few weeks ago showed a story of a 8 month pregnant woman who was raped repeatedly in front of her husband and son in their own home) she almost lost the baby and they will never get over this awful experience.

In my opinion, once they were tied up ANYTHING could have happened to them

They were totally justified. We need a change in the law.

There are plenty of people who agree with you, mainly in places like South Africa and Haiti. I suggest you move there.

HTH

[AtW]

There are plenty of people who agree with you, mainly in places like South Africa and Haiti. I suggest you move there.

What would you say if someone got into your eco shed and burnt it to the ground? Would you give them a nobel peace prize?

[oracleslave]

There are plenty of people who agree with you, mainly in places like South Africa and Haiti. I suggest you move there.

HTH

Mob justice is not unique to SA, it appears to be fairly common throughout Africa.

Unless you have actually been in that situation, with your loved ones laid vulnerable in front of you, raped or perhaps worse, how do you know how you would react? It may not be right but from first hand experience I can assure you I would kill or incapacitate the feqqers at the first opportunity.