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

Oh, and the laughter was at Blues Shark's Littlejohn jibe.

B

Not immediately recognising Littlejohns name I went a-searching and found

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1390395.stm

A match made in heaven I feel.

Still thinking but unfortunately i don;t feel this issue can be discussed in isolation, I think the law that governs the subjects under discussion here is a symptom and not a problem. But to find the problem, that's what I'm trying to work out now !

Hoovooloo

I could accept a change in law that slightly modified the balance in favour of the person defending their home, but never to the extent you're suggesting.

The vast majority of burglaries in the UK involve no violence. The aim is to go in and come out with your TV and other disposable goods.

Although it is a pain in the ass to get burgled or mugged, I could never accept that my TV or indeed any form of property, is worth the life of even the worst burgling low-life.

Nor do I believe that the probability of a criminal on the way out with your TV coming back with armed friends is anywhere near high enough to justify shooting them in the back. 9 times out of 10, your very appearance will be enough to ensure that they scarper. Sure, only shooting them in the back will ensure that you keep your TV, but this brings us back to our third para.

Sprout

Sprout, this would be equal to putting a sign at your house stating: 'Please come in and take what you like. I will not like it but your happiness is more important'.
No, let the burglars know that it is not only unlawfull to steal, but also bloody dangerous for them!

"If there's no point campaigning for a change in the law, how then will it be changed? Popular opinion is overwhelmingly on your side over this, so surely it is something that ought to be changed?

Though that does rather fly in the face of your contentions about why the law on hanging hasn't been changed, I guess..."

The difference being that I can see immediately an overwhelming argument why, despite the view of the majority, that hanging is wrong. AND I can sum it up in a pithy sentence. "Sooner or later you'd execute an innocent man, and I don't want it to be ME!"

After a lot of thought over the years, I still can't see *any* reason why the law protects criminals while they're in the process of committing their crimes, and if someone else can tell me, preferably in a pithy sentence, I'd be eternally grateful.

H.

Hoovooloo, two points. Firstly, on self-defence.

Let's take the situation out onto the street so as to take out the burglary side of things. If some one hits you, and you hit them back, knocking them out, maybe accidentally killing them because they hit their head on a piece of concrete or something, there's no problem, legitimate self-defence, yes?

Someone lunges at you with a knife and, being licensed to do so, you pull out a gun and shoot them. It doesn't sit *quite* as well, because of the general (and entirely false) conception of guns as being more lethal than knives, but still self-defence.

Someone lunges at you with a knife, cutting you, and as above you pull out your gun. However, before you have time to shoot, the attacker notices the gun and turns, running away from you. Would shooting them then be self-defence?

Second point. What you have said (as best I understand, correct me if I'm wrong) is that anyone *in the act of committing a crime* at that time surrenders any protection under the law. So you could shoot a pickpocket? I don't think you'd seriously suggest such a thing... but what would you say is reasonable? And if you *don't* say that you could shoot a pickpocket, then clearly you're saying that they must still have some protection under law even in the execution of a crime. True?

So where then is the line to be drawn? *Why* do you hold that anyone entering your house without your permission (okay, presuming you heard glass breaking and see them carrying out the TV or something) is necessarily threatening your life? Because they could possibly have the potential to harm you, and if they're willing to steal property they're probably willing to take your life also? So if I'm a grocer and someone walking past wearing a martial arts Gi and carrying a bag full of training weapons steals an apple I'm justified in shooting them?

The argument basically seems to be based on the sacrosanctity of your house, and the fact that anyone breaking in *could* kill you. That argument really does not hold any water at all; you've suggested not only that you should be able to shoot anyone breaking into your house but that you should be able to ambush them without having any idea at all if they even know that you're in the house! *That* is absolutely murder, I don't care where you are. You can't just kill a person on the off-chance that they may kill you. That's why you need to have protection even for people committing a crime; even caught absolutely red-handed a person is *still* considered innocent until proven guilty, the use of lethal force is only reasonable if there is a genuine and immediate *fear* for your safety, and presupposing that anyone breaking into your house could kill you is *not* a genuine, immediate fear for your life.

Another, final example of this. I work as a security officer. A burglary (at least in Australia) is essentially defined as entering any premises (*not* just breaking in, but entering full stop) after dark for the purpose of committing an indictable offence - assault, theft, etc. In a nightclub, if I'm the door-person, and someone has been thrown out (made into a trespasser) then if they stand there ranting and raving about how they're going to 'get' me and then rush at me, as soon as they set one foot inside the door they are a burglar, and there is an immediate, demonstrated threat to my safety. Am I justified in shooting them? Even hitting them with a baton? No. If they do go away, and come back later for the *express* purpose of 'getting' me am I entitled to do anything? No. But they're then *more* likely than someone breaking into your house to be armed, and have expressly said that they're going to attack me. If they rushed at me, I still wouldn't (and shouldn't) be able to use anything other than my fists unless and *until* I can see that they have a weapon on them. Now, you could say that as such an officer I've expressly been trained for this sort of situation, but I'm still not a professional, in reality I'm *not* armed even with a baton, and the threat to me is directly expressed and very particularly aimed. I still should not be able to shoot or even use a weapon of any sort against that person unless it is absolutely necessary.

*reads latest posts*

Sorry it's not a pithy sentence

"Let's take the situation out onto the street so as to take out the burglary side of things."

Let's not. Quite a lot of the point of this was the principle of the crime being in progress. On the street, it is easy to suggest, as you do, than an attack was over by the time defence or retaliation was effected. The point of the burglary scenario was (a) to compare to the Martin case for effect and (b) to concentrate on the principle of KNOWING that a person was IN THE PROCESS of committing a crime AT THE TIME you defend yourself.

"If some one hits you, and you hit them back, knocking them out, maybe accidentally killing them because they hit their head on a piece of concrete or something, there's no problem, legitimate self-defence, yes?"

Absolutely, and this defence has been proven valid again and again in the British courts.

"Someone lunges at you with a knife and, being licensed to do so, you pull out a gun and shoot them. It doesn't sit *quite* as well, because of the general (and entirely false) conception of guns as being more lethal than knives, but still self-defence."

I agree. Sean Connery in the Untouchables springs to mind... "Isn't that just like a [racial epithet]. Brings a knife to a gunfight."

"Someone lunges at you with a knife, cutting you, and as above you pull out your gun. However, before you have time to shoot, the attacker notices the gun and turns, running away from you. Would shooting them then be self-defence?"

Why should their defence - that their attack had been over for a whole second or two - protect them from your defensive retaliation?

"Second point. What you have said (as best I understand, correct me if I'm wrong) is that anyone *in the act of committing a crime* at that time surrenders any protection under the law. So you could shoot a pickpocket? I don't think you'd seriously suggest such a thing..."

Wrong. My acquaintance was in a position to seriously damage the guy who took her wallet. Because she chose not to, because she restrained herself, he opened up her face. Why, if I feel my pocket being picked, should I expose myself to that risk? Disable first, ask questions later.

"So where then is the line to be drawn? *Why* do you hold that anyone entering your house without your permission (okay, presuming you heard glass breaking and see them carrying out the TV or something) is necessarily threatening your life?"

I don't assume that they are. I'm just not prepared to find out. And why should I? I KNOW they're a criminal. Why is it my responsibility to find out for the police whether they're a common burglar, an armed rapist, or a psychopathic serial killer? Someone else can find that out by asking them, if and when they regain consciousness.

"Because they could possibly have the potential to harm you, and if they're willing to steal property they're probably willing to take your life also?"

Not "probably", but "possibly". I didn't volunteer to be their victim. They volunteered to be my attacker.

"So if I'm a grocer and someone walking past wearing a martial arts Gi and carrying a bag full of training weapons steals an apple I'm justified in shooting them?"

That's a rather ridiculous and unrealistic example, if I may say so. Has there ever been such a crime?

"The argument basically seems to be based on the sacrosanctity of your house, and the fact that anyone breaking in *could* kill you. That argument really does not hold any water at all; you've suggested not only that you should be able to shoot anyone breaking into your house but that you should be able to ambush them without having any idea at all if they even know that you're in the house!"

Why should it matter whether they know I'm in the house or not? Why do they have ANY right to that information? One thing I can guarantee that they DO know. They DEFINITELY know that the house isn't theirs, and that they're breaking the law.

"*That* is absolutely murder, I don't care where you are. You can't just kill a person on the off-chance that they may kill you."

Funny - the police do it all the time. Just recently a case has been in the news of the man the British police shot dead in the street because he was carrying a wooden table leg in a plastic bag. He was killed, literally, on the off chance he might have killed someone else. By the police.

"even caught absolutely red-handed a person is *still* considered innocent until proven guilty"

Um... if they're standing in my house, that's proof they're guilty, isn't it??? BY DEFINITION, their presence is proof of their guilt. So that argument, which is so useful against vigilante action OFF ones own property, has no use here.

"the use of lethal force is only reasonable if there is a genuine and immediate *fear* for your safety, and presupposing that anyone breaking into your house could kill you is *not* a genuine, immediate fear for your life."

See above.

"there is an immediate, demonstrated threat to my safety. Am I justified in shooting them? Even hitting them with a baton? No."

Why not? Why, and ask this in all seriousness, must you wait for them to knife you before you can hit them with a baton? Why must you wait for them to shoot you before you shoot them? Given, as you say, that they are already in the act of committing an offence, and have stated an aim to harm you, why are you not justified in applying overwhelming and potentially lethal force to disable them?

"If they do go away, and come back later for the *express* purpose of 'getting' me am I entitled to do anything? No. But they're then *more* likely than someone breaking into your house to be armed, and have expressly said that they're going to attack me. If they rushed at me, I still wouldn't (and shouldn't) be able to use anything other than my fists unless and *until* I can see that they have a weapon on them."

I'm sorry, but this just sounds dumb. It stacks all the odds in the favour of someone you can literally SEE is in the act of breaking the law.

"Now, you could say that as such an officer I've expressly been trained for this sort of situation, but I'm still not a professional, in reality I'm *not* armed even with a baton, and the threat to me is directly expressed and very particularly aimed. I still should not be able to shoot or even use a weapon of any sort against that person unless it is absolutely necessary."

My position would be that it IS necessary that you remove the threat that that person poses as quickly as possible with minimum risk to yourself. I say "minimum risk", because YOU have not volunteered to face any risk - whereas your attacker has. The minimum risk approach would be, as I say, instant, overwhelming force.

To those who say "yes, but if you respond that way, you could end up in prison", I would say "yes, but if I DON'T respond that way when I could have, I could end up in hospital or the morgue. And I'd blame myself for not killing them first." Given a potential choice between solitary confinement and intensive care or a grave, which should I choose?

H.

Pithy? Hoovooloo, you have got a bloody nerve.

I thought I had been pity in F19585?thread=203256&post=2297589#p2297586 .

I also thought it answered the question 'why does the law protects criminalswhile they're in the process of committing their crimes'. Obviously not.

Do not forget that no-one sat down and wrote British Law. It is a hodgepodge of formalised custom and practice and prescedent based on a number of different legal systems (Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norman, French, though probably not Irish (living in brackets)).

The reason it has neither rhyme nor reason is because it was not created as a whole. Stop thinking like an engineer, and start thinking like an archeologist. With a particularly rich midden to go through.

Ben

Pithy.

I thought I had been Pithy in F19585?thread=203256&post=2297589#p2297586 .

It's that bloody cotton-wool again.

Ben

"Stop thinking like an engineer, and start thinking like an archeologist"

But we have it in our power to fix it if it's broke. And it's broke. Isn't it?

H.

The obvious response to that is that yes, you DO have the power to change it, but that means campaigning for a change in the law, which you've already said you don't see the point of...

I'm not trying to score points here, but if you want change, you have to work for it. Like Jimmy Cliff said-'You can get it if you really want, but you must try.'

Self defence is surely the defence of the self - as Martin had not been attacked how could he claim it. Guns are tool designed to murder, using or even pointing a loaded weapon is (at least) attempted murder. Even if you are not aiming to kill (ie aiming at a limb) i personally feel it is still attempted murder given the risk of (i) missing, and (ii) death through bleeding / septicaemia / trauma etc.

Who are these back to Russia types BluesShark is on about? im intrigued.

Should a criminal be entitled to protection from the law?

Yes. If caught, that criminal will be punished by the law, so why should s/he not be protected by it too?
Man-traps for poachers were outlawed because they severely injured people who were only stealing, which I would say is a good thing. If the poachers posed a threat to people then it would be legal for those people to defend themselves. The same applies to burglars (except that burglars aren't seen as heroes), so I don't think that any change in the situation is necessary. It's more difficult to tell when a burglar is posing a threat, but no change in the law would alter that situation.

A relative of mine who was burgled reacted by deciding for himself who was to blame, and going round to his house to threaten the man's wife and children. He also thinks that stories about burglars being set light to in petrol attacks are funny. It makes the rest of us relatives pretty anxious about making creaks on his stairs at nights. I wouldn't like to give someone like that the impression that they can do what they like to a burglar without being made accountable.

I think the law is fine at the moment with self defence. Of course, if I had children I might feel differently about my right to protect my family. But I don't, so I can't tell.

Back to Russia types? If you elucidate the phraseology, I'll gladly do my best to explain...

autist:

"Self defence is surely the defence of the self - as Martin had not been attacked how could he claim it."

Why, if my house has already been broken into, do you expect me to wait for the intruders to attack me before I take action? I didn't invite them in. They may be intent on harming me. Why wait?

"Guns are tool designed to murder, using or even pointing a loaded weapon is (at least) attempted murder. Even if you are not aiming to kill (ie aiming at a limb) i personally feel it is still attempted murder given the risk of (i) missing, and (ii) death through bleeding / septicaemia / trauma etc."

Even the law disagrees with you on that. A woman on her own in a house with a group of mail assailants could probably shoot the lot of them with both barrels and claim reasonable self-defence, even if they weren't carrying firearms.

H.

'mail assailants'

Posties???

Ben

With the amount Hoovooloo posted these days, he is allowed some typo's!
have a look at <./>info</.>

The mailman always shoots twice...

Dastardly:

"Should a criminal be entitled to protection from the law?

Yes. If caught, that criminal will be punished by the law, so why should s/he not be protected by it too? "

Well, there's a clue in what you said. *IF* they get caught, IF they're charged and IF they can be convicted, the law MIGHT punish them for disregarding it. If they're not...?

I'm not talking about punishment here, I'm talking about stopping someone in their tracks while they are in the process of committing a crime of which I am the victim, at minimum risk to me.

"Man-traps for poachers were outlawed because they severely injured people who were only stealing, which I would say is a good thing."

So would I, since man-traps (a) perpetuated an unequal and iniquitous system of serfdom and (b) are non-discriminatory.

"It's more difficult to tell when a burglar is posing a threat, but no change in the law would alter that situation."

EXACTLY MY POINT. There is no way to tell, standing on your stairs, whether the three men padding silently through your hall are planning to pinch your telly, or kidnap your children, or rape and murder you and your husband. And there is no reason you should be forced to find out before you prevent them from doing any of those things.

"A relative of mine who was burgled reacted by deciding for himself who was to blame"

Weakness right there - if he didn't catch the guy in the act, that's just vigilante-ism, and I'm NOT talking about that. I'm dead against that, in fact, for the simple reason that vigilantes are even worse than 'proper' justice at getting the right person.

"I wouldn't like to give someone like that the impression that they can do what they like to a burglar without being made accountable."

I'm not suggesting that one should be allowed to do what you like. See above posting re: execution. I AM suggesting that one should be able to use whatever force is necessary to completely disable an intruder. It's not the same thing.

"I think the law is fine at the moment with self defence. Of course, if I had children I might feel differently about my right to protect my family. But I don't, so I can't tell."

You might also feel differently about your right to protect yourself if you wake up tonight and hear someone breaking into your house. Why can you acknowledge that if put in the situation you might feel differently, and yet not make the leap and FEEL differently? Why do you have to be put in the situation personally, before you can consider it?

H.

The simple order in which crimes are committed should not be a reason for non-protection under the law.

HVL, you're arguing that because a burgler enters your house illegally, he no longer has *any* protection under the law. Surely, to take that argument further, you have no protection under the law if you committed a crime by having an illegal weapon, or intended to use a weapon to severly injure someone.

You lose certain rights when you commit a crime, I agree. But to lose your right to any kind of protection is absurd. Why not set up snipers to pick off speeding motorists? It's a ridiculous, but it follows the same principle.

Snipers to pick off speeding motorists? Have you been watching "The Day Today"? And if not, why not?

H.