h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

no wait! i know what it is!

I am distraught!

It was to FKF's 93.

Meh. In the real world, not everyone's saintly. On a bad day, I might well think 'Mind your own business'.

But again - I congratulate you on the superior accuracy of you moral compass. Remove traffic obstructions and execute burglars on sight.

ah
and i did get that it was directed to me Edward
and i agree... i have done off the handle things when... distraught

anyway
i just wanted to point out
as off topic as it might be
that typing my name out with no capitals
can be a fun experience
what with all those double letters

its part of the reason i made it
its like a little finger dance
try it
you might like it

"it is wholly unreasonable to kill someone unless you know they are posing a risk "

If someone is in my house without permission, day or night, they're posing a risk. End of.

And no, I've not been reading anything. This is from bitter personal experience.

All three times I've been burgled, it was by a *group of men*, rather than an individual. Two of those times I was the only man in the house at the time. One of those times, one of the perps left the house as I approached. Put yourself in that position for a moment. What's your FIRST priority, lacking a ranged weapon, as you watch their retreating back?

...

The correct answer is - make sure there aren't any more still in the house, and do it fast, then secure the entrances and call the police.

As it was, I was lucky - I didn't get between anyone and the door. If I had... at that point I would have known for certain that there was one person *in* my home intending mischief, and AT LEAST one of his buddies outside. My *responsibility* at that point, to the woman and children upstairs as well as myself, would have been to disable the one in front of me as quickly as possible before his mate(s) had the chance to notice his absence and come back to help him. Of course, they could be cowards and be away on their toes, of course, they could be armed and I might have no chance, of course, they could... what if... they might... Nobody can be expected to make those decisions at a time like that.

Finally - why would I track you down and shoot you? You're not in my house.

>>Finally - why would I track you down and shoot you? You're not in my house.

Just responding to your slightly silly 'There's no guarantee'.

I've already made it clear that it may be reasonable to kill people who you believe are presenting a risk. *However* - we should expect people to exercise some level of judgement and proportionality. Although - I fully accept that in scary situations it's hard to make a judgement.

You are talking about shooting a fleeing burglar in the back 'because there's no guarantee' that the scenario that they'll come back with an armed gang (even though they've seen your gun?) is anything more than an implausible fantasy. It is only marginally more likely to happen than you are to track me down. Thus shooting the escaping burglar in the back is a disproportionate response.

When I found a burglar in my mother's bedroom, it was not necessary for me to kill him. Or even speak harshly. It was pretty plain that he was shit scared and wanted out.* There was *very* little chance he was coming back.

The fear of crime is known not to match its prevalence. Yes - some very nasty things happen. Burglary is one of them. But most burglaries happen when premises are unoccupied. Even when residents are at home, most do not involve violence. Most criminality in general is penny ante, incompetent stuff perpetrated by amateurs. I'm not saying should leave our doors unlocked (although I often do ). But we really *don't* have to go down the road of getting tooled up and shooting miscreants on sight, just in case.







* Lamplugh Trust safety tip, folks: Don't block the exit. Give your potential attacker a way out - it's where most of them will want to go. Don't create a cornered rat.

"It was pretty plain that he was shit scared and wanted out.* There was *very* little chance he was coming back."

And you knew for a fact he was unarmed.

And you knew for a fact he'd come alone.

Or you knew for a fact that if he hadn't, none of the people he'd brought with him were bigger, or less scared, or more aggressive or desperate or simply drugged up enough to be more of a problem than he was.

In a situation like that, you have ONE piece of information that you know for a fact - there's at least one criminal inside your home. In my direct, personal and repeated experience, these people don't come into your home alone. *Everything* else beyond the fact of their presence is speculation, speculation you might be betting your life and the lives of your family on.

Fear vs. prevalence is an academic discussion - we're talking about appropriate action in the face of a manifest threat. I don't have a moat, I don't booby-trap my windows - I'm not paranoid. All I'm saying is - when a crime is *in the process of happening to you*, *in your home*, I don't think *any* level of force up to and beyond lethal can be described as unreasonable.

(This has all got away rather from the subject of Sarah Duncan, the knitwear shop owner, bad driver, foul-mouthed harridan and general [removed by moderator], hasn't it?)

No, I didn't know any of those things. But the outcome was that nobody was harmed. A good result?

A genuinely interesting statement, though:

>>All I'm saying is - when a crime is *in the process of happening to you*, *in your home*, I don't think *any* level of force up to and beyond lethal can be described as unreasonable.

This is an 'I don't think' statement. Our opinions clearly differ. I don't think (hah!) this can be just a matter of different perceptions of the level of risk - we're not far away from one another on the issue of whether we need to booby-trap our windows and I doubt that you are any more nervous in daily life than I am.

Is there an element of 'what people deserve'? Or 'What's right'?

Which...claws back to Sarah Duncan...is it about what she deserves - being a 'bad driver, foul-mouthed harridan and general [removed by moderator]'?

And is there some dichotomous thinking going on, separating people in the goodies, patrolling the streets and making sure that the others - the baddies - don't step out of line?

"the outcome was that nobody was harmed. A good result?"

You missed out the words "luckily for me" and "this time". And yes, of course, a good result. But you must surely recognise that you were lucky?

A *better* result would have been to detain the scrote and have him locked up so he didn't get the chance to do the same or worse to someone else the next night and the next and the next, but you're not a policeman and neither am I.

"Is there an element of 'what people deserve'? Or 'What's right'?"

Not in my attitude to burglars, not at all. Those are abstract concepts unrelated to my immediate physical safety. Once an intruder's body has stopped moving, I've secured entrances and called the emergency services, then and not before might I consider luxuries like what I think the scumbag deserves (plenty) and whether it would be right for me to administer it (no).

As far as Sarah Duncan is concerned - who is "patrolling the streets"? Aren't we all "patrolling the streets"? Shouldn't we all take some responsibility for doing what we can to ensure our civilised country remains so, by doing whatever we can without endangering ourselves?

To my mind, calmly videoing evidence of misbehaviour is an excellent, non-confrontational and (usually) safe way of disincentivising anti-social behaviour - and shouldn't we all be doing that? Or is it better if we're all just sheep, allowing the bullies and the gittish to ride roughshod over the weaker or more polite, and leave all the enforcement of good behaviour to our hard-pressed and shrinking police force? You don't strike me as someone with a high degree of trust or respect for the police, and yet you seem to be suggesting that all enforcement of good behaviour should come from them and nobody else. Are you *sure*?

Oh, and for interest - the word "removed by moderator" was the first name of the actor who portrayed Dirty Harry. {removed by moderator} Eastwood.

Calmly videoing evidence of misbehaviour is one thing. Uploading it to youtube may even be legal, as long as you don't add a copyrighted music track that is

But then, acting all surprised when the misbehaving shop owners get abuse and threats is rather curious.

To be fair, the guy who uploaded it did so on the day it happened last November. It only went viral a couple of days ago. I think surprise at something going viral at all, let alone three months after the fact, is perfectly reasonable. After all, who can predict what will go viral?

Who'd have thought FENTON! FENTON! OH JESUS CHRIST! would have been everywhere for a week? Certainly not the guy who filmed it, I'm guessing. He probably thought his mates would get a chuckle and that would be it. If you could predict what would catch the internet public's imagination in this way, you could make a lot of money very quickly...

Fair point

Interesting to note that the appalling Mrs. Duncan's website http://sdkbath.com/ is now completely blank, no longer even showing a placeholder page.

I wonder if the episode has affected her business in these recession-hit times...