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

when somebody double posts.

McKay: well put.

"Making History" summary. It's a book of two halves, each half telling two stories.

Part One: the hero, a history postgrad at Cambridge and expert on the early life of Hitler, coincidentally is seeing a lady biomed researcher who develops a substance which renders men infertile for life. He also coincidentally bumps into a physics professor who builds a sort of "time viewer" machine which allows him to view, and very, very slightly alter, history.

Parallel to this we see some episodes from the early life of Adolf Hitler, and in particular his association with a chap named Rudolf Gloder (a fictional character), who is killed in WW1.

Part One comes to a climax when our hero inserts the infertility-potion, via the time viewer, into the water supply in Hitler's parents' home town before his conception. Everything then goes wibbly and our hero wakes up....

In Part Two, the world is different. WW2 never took place. Our hero is ecstatic. He asks a friend if he's ever heard of Hitler. His friend is completely blank. "Marvellous - no Nazi Party then!". The look is no longer blank, but cold. Hitler never was, sure. But Gloder, who in "our" world died in WW1, in this world lived, and became a hero, presided over more powerful Nazi party, and did not openly persecute the Jews, but rather used them for his own purposes. Germany developed the atom bomb first, and used it. The Nazis effectively control Europe. Gloder also became aware of the strange effect of the water in a certain well in Austria, which appeared to make men infertile. Although nobody knew why it worked - lacking the early 21st century technology which developed the substance - they were able to replicate it and dose every single Jew in Europe with it compulsorily. Result: there are now no Jews left in Europe.

Our hero is horrified. The world he created is worse, in many ways, than the one with Hitler in it. At least some Jews survived the Holocaust in that world. At least only two atomic weapons were detonated in that world, and a balance of power existed, instead of German world domination. So he goes back to Cambridge, finds the inventor of the time viewer, and gets him to invent it again. Then reverses his change of history.

You can tell it's a Stephen Fry book because the happy ending has our hero not only setting the world to rights, but also realising that he was never cut out for the relationship he had with the biomed woman he was seeing at the beginning, and tripping off into the sunset with a bloke who, rather implausibly, survives the transition from the alternate universe with memories of his emerging homosexuality intact.

H.

Great summary. Thanks

Nice one, HVL - You might have had the foresight to whittle a toothbrush into a deadly weapon, and be confident in your ability to accurately hit each burglar's eye socket in turn in the dark as they come at you one at a time, martial-arts-film-style.
Rather than preparing the deadly toothbrush, why not just use your sharpening knife instead? It'd be more deniable if you did win than a home-made weapon. "Honestly, officer, he must have picked it up in the kitchen, but I managed to wrestle it out of his hand when he attacked me."

Have you ever tried chasing someone round a house with an aerosol and cigarette lighter trying to get them into the magic range where you can incinerate their face yet whilst still being out of the reach of their fists?. Even assuming you don't fumble the ignition, or manage to set fire to your lighter-holding hand, the furniture or the curtains, as a useful weapon I'd give it 1/10.

Maybe you could even think about getting a burglar alarm?

"No. But it *IS* reasonable, and legal, for the bouncers to detain those people and hand them over to the police. Which is what they *should* do if an offence has been committed. And if this legal and proper procedure was followed, the scenario you describe could not happen."

But what if people are thrown out for rowdiness, or the police don't consider them worth arresting. The point is that it isn't considered reasonable for a person to consider a very low (albeit non-zero) risk of harm as the justification for attacking and killing someone else in self defence.

Taken to the logical extreme, there are countless times when other people pose a *risk* to our safety, but I think the law requires that a reasonable person would rate a risk as significant before it can be responded to.

It isn't legal to kill in *cold blood* to protect against a small threat of death (otherwise, many women would be able to legallly kill violent ex-partners, and managers of US Postal offices would be allowed to shoot failed employees rather than firing them). The only concession to hot-bloodedness should be that if someone else starts the violence, it is accepted that the attacked person might go a bit far in defence.

"If you're prepared to bet your life and the life of your family on the goodwill and scareability of criminals you've never met, good luck to you. I'm not."

Yet you're prepared to bet that you'd prevail against an unknown number of burglars of unknown abilities or states of mind, using sub-A-team weaponry, *and* avoid a conviction if you succeeded. Good luck.

PS Nice to see you fully back, HVL, the place is smaller without you around.

Actually forget the lighter - just spray hairspray direct into someones eyes - or polish - or deodarant.

Aerosols may be some use as a defensive weapon (if they're running into the cloud with eyes open). Less useful if you're running after them.

If you're on a higher floor in a house than the burglars, I think you're safer staying where you are. Unless they have guns, I suspect you'd have a much better chance fending people off if they *did* turn aggressive when they became aware of your presence if you were at the top of the stairs armed with a chair/baseball bat/whatever, and they were at the bottom.

Also, if *they* come to *you*, your self defence case strengthens immensely, and you have access to the classic excuse "But your honour, he just fell down the stairs".

In some countries, South Africa for example it is legal to use deadly force to combat theft. Have you ever seen the flame throwing car theft deterent sold there? (general question)

Yes.
"It was *such* a shame about Granny and her friends, but I *was* trying to press the accelerator to show her what the engine sounded like, and my foot must have slipped onto the *special* pedal."

I almost posted a laugh smiley.

It's true, there is an auto model that has flamethrowers under the doors when they are broken into.

I saw a news clip on television - didn't list any UK stockists though.

This is the most interesting thread I've lurked since the W*r in I*aq thread got stomped on. I can really sympathise with Mother of God's internal inconsistencies. As I've got older the innocent young hippy who thought love and peace could change the world has died. Harsh reality seeped in and undermined all my happy notions about how everyone would be nice if only they were treated with love and respect. Still, there can't be one over-riding principle to guide everybody when there are so many different ways of viewing the world. For example, some people - a minority perhaps - would consider revenge an adequate justification for killing.

A few years ago a friend of mine was attacked by a man she thought was a friend. (It later turned out that his wife left him because he was a rapist.) He did horrible things to her - I don't know the half because she's too ashamed to say. The police prosecuted him. The charges started off serious and gradually were whittled down and down until he was just given a warning finally (bound over I think it's called). It was complicated and lots of information turned up over the course of years that just kept the sore running, so to speak. Records were lost by the police and crown prosecution service (photographs etc). The officers in charge of the case were outraged but one was moved to a different case and the other seemed to give up. My friend went into a decline. It seemed there was to be no justice. The man had not shown one jot of remorse though he didn't deny committing the crime. She spent years in therapy. She hasn't been the same since it happened. She lost self-respect, confidence, even the will to live for a while. Some people might have been able to adjust to whatever that man did to her but she doesn't seem to have been able to. Perhaps, if she had been able to sneak up on him, as he had on her, and carried out what ever she felt appropriate (including killing if that's what it took) to settle her need for redress, she might have been able to come to terms with the horror he put her through.

No doubt a lot of people would say it's utterly wrong to kill for any reason other than self-defence but that may be because they've been brought up in a particular type of society (Western/Christian/liberal) where they're mercifully shielded from the harsh realities of life. It hardly seems natural to have to consider the wrong-doer in cases like this one or the burglary example given by Hoovooloo. If I had the wherewithal to dispatch the burglars entering my home, I wouldn't hesitate. Trouble is, I wouldn't have the wherewithal .... but in principle, I'd have the b*st*ard. That's how far I've sunk since those flowery days of believing 'all you need is love'.

I didn't quite say John Lennon was completely wrong - In fact I believe he is right. If you have enough love, and those around you are strongly loving enough.

Its just that I don't have that much love.

I used to think that John was a rich, dreamer who was protected from the harsher realities of the world (Shows how much I knew eh ?) As I've grown older I've developed a different perception.

Love IS all you need, not money, for if you are loved they will not let you go cold or hungry. Not career progression because if you have love then the trivial successes of office politics are meaningless. Of course you then have to decide what you are prepared to sacrifice for that love.

I would add the rider that you need health to fully enjoy the benefits of the love, and an elite force who travel the world and shoot the evil people that there are in the world.

For an individual love is the most important thing, for without it we have no meaning to our lives. I'm sure the community is familiar with Ozimandes - it wasn't until I reached the age of 45 that I truely appreciated what love is, and how right John was.

At this point we should slide into George Harrison singing "All those years ago," but the technology is lacking.

John and George both discovered that Love cannot protect from those in the world who's lives run to a different beat, but without love then its all meaningless anyway.

Many interesting posts since I left this morning. Again, thanks!

Some I agree with, some not, many don't exactly apply to my dilemma (though they apply to situations).

The most disturbing one I read was this:
>Inconsistent ideas do not necessarily have to contradict each other. Everyone has lots of ideas that are complete opposites sitting quite happily in their minds.

I would suggest not trying to find an absolute moral in this. Make your value judgements based on situation. I think you will find that, should you come upon a situation where you feel you need to kill, what you decide here won't make much difference.<

That one illustrated my point in starting this thread. Just because many people make facile statements about their values doesn't mean they're true. Those are people who are lazy or who haven't much integrity, in my book. I read something I wrote and realized that I was being lazy and hypocritical. I don't find that acceptable. People who accept that in themselves are not my problem until they *become* my problem. I don't know exactly where my absolute moral lies on this matter, and when I find it I doubt I'll expect other people to adhere to the same values *I've* chosen. Free will, ya know? But yes, once I figure out where I stand, you can BET it'll make a difference in how I behave. That's my nature.

"Nice one, HVL - You might have had the foresight to whittle a toothbrush into a deadly weapon, and be confident in your ability to accurately hit each burglar's eye socket in turn in the dark as they come at you one at a time, martial-arts-film-style."

Nice idea. But in the real world, of course, you don't wait for them to come to you. You come to them, first. Do unto others, before they do unto you.

"Rather than preparing the deadly toothbrush, why not just use your sharpening knife instead?"

Because the knife has a sharp edge and is therefore potentially dangerous to me. The toothbrush (or comb) has only a sharp point, so sudden forceful insertion into the eyesocket (or the base of the skull, or the throat from many angles, or between some of the lumbar vertebrae - it's not a limited choice by any means) is a relatively quick procedure and very safe for the person performing it. Knives have a nasty habit of slipping and cutting the person holdling them. Plus they are not, despite what you say, as plausibly deniable as a toothbrush.

"Have you ever tried chasing someone round a house..."

No, but as I say, I'm not proposing chasing anyone anywhere. The principle is that your first contact with your assailant results in their immediate disablement - nobody is chasing anyone anywhere. Also, have you ever actually USED an aerosol can as a flame thrower? The "magic range" you refer to... I'd estimate average fist range as what? Three feet? Put a match to a full can of Sure on full blast. Better still, get someone to point one straight at you and do it. See how close you feel like standing to that. The magic range is pretty long, and a large, bright, and above all LOUD flame in a dark confined space would have a substantial psychological effect on top of the heat and fire. The big advantage with this weapon in particular is that no matter how drugged up your assailant, they all still have that primeval fear of fire, and they WILL back off in the face of it.

In the unlikely event you set fire to something in the house, you can deal with it after the assailant is down, or you can get yourself and your family out of the house. The fire brigade can then deal with the fire and recover the body. Paramount at all times is your personal safety. Insurance will cover fire damage, and of course it was started by the burglar... who isn't around to contradict your story.

"as a useful weapon I'd give it 1/10."

It's the nearest thing you can get to napalm for the home, and how many military forces have that?

"Maybe you could even think about getting a burglar alarm?"

You think I haven't?

"The point is that it isn't considered reasonable for a person to consider a very low (albeit non-zero) risk of harm as the justification for attacking and killing someone else in self defence."

It is if that person is an armed police officer. I can't remember the name of the guy now, but recently some poor bugger was shot by a police marksman in London. The marksman had shouted out something like "put down the gun, Jock", which confused the guy because he was Welsh. (Note: I may have got that backwards and the copper shouted "put the gun down Taff" when he was in fact Scottish). Anyhoo, there was no way he could comply with the order, because he wasn't carrying a gun. He WAS carrying a wooden table leg from a table he was restoring, in a supermarket carrier bag. Needless to say, he didn't put *that* down. So the police killed him. This was apparently "reasonable force". I would suggest that the risk in that case was in fact not low but actually zero. Nevertheless, the policeman made a judgement call and killed an unarmed man in the street in "self defence".

"... I think the law requires that a reasonable person would rate a risk as significant before it can be responded to."

I think someone deliberately breaking into my house in the middle of the night counts as "significant". I think someone joining me uninvited in my car at a set of traffic lights counts as "significant". Don't you?

"It isn't legal to kill in *cold blood* to protect against a small threat of death (otherwise, many women would be able to legallly kill violent ex-partners"

And aren't there organisations of women both here and in the US campaigning for them to be allowed to do precisely that? Yes, there are.

"The only concession to hot-bloodedness should be that if someone else starts the violence, it is accepted that the attacked person might go a bit far in defence."

The "violence" in my home-invasion scenario starts when the assailant breaks down my door, or smashes my window, or whatever. It's not violence to my body, it's violence to my mind, because I'm in fear of my life right at that moment. So you seem to be coming round to my side...

"Yet you're prepared to bet that you'd prevail against an unknown number of burglars of unknown abilities or states of mind"

Statistically, they are most likely to number three or less, which are not bad odds when you have the element of surprise, knowledge of the ground and are likely to be in a more controlled state of mind than they are - after all, *you* are not committing a crime...

"using sub-A-team weaponry"

I love it when a plan comes together!

UK unfortunately law severely limits what's legal, so you're *forced* to improvise. The deodorant can has many things to recommend it, but a nice bottle of really strong bleach would be almost as good.

"*and* avoid a conviction if you succeeded."

That's a different thing altogether. It's been pointed out to me before in conversations along these lines that I'd risk jail for defending myself, my home and partner in this way. My response is that I'd rather be in jail than in hospital or in a morgue, so I'll take my chances with the justice system. And if a judge and jury can look me in the eye and tell me I should have gone easier on the scum who broke into my home, I don't want to be free to walk around in this country any more. I'd be safer inside.

"PS Nice to see you fully back, HVL, the place is smaller without you around."





H.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1708491.stm

H.

I think I've dragged this thread off topic far enough, so I think I'll...



G'night all.

H.

Ach, Hoo, ya know I love ya . But while you're so effectively making points regarding situations (which I agree with you on, by the way, though I'm *much* more hard core than you on the subject) I'm gonna ask a little favor, one which you can do for me if you chose to:

Principles, dahlink. I vant principles, not circumstances. I think you're fully equipped to give 'em to me, to.

And I only ask YOU that because I've seen you do the same thing when you've tried to keep a thread on track.

Okey dokey, juss for you...

Reducing it to a principle, hmm. Since the question is "when is it ok to kill people", and I've already given *some* principles, which included:

"Defending oneself, one's family, and anyone else for whom one is responsible (friends, acquaintances, random bystanders - Jesus pretty much summed it up with his definition of "your neighbour"). I have (see above) rather specific definitions of what constitutes an attack requiring lethal defense."

So if you asking me for more, I guess you're asking me for that definition. So I'd say - an attack which justifies a potentially lethal defence (I say potentially, because the intent should be to instantly and completely disable, and a large proportion of such defenses will by their nature turn out to be lethal, but life's a bitch, eh?) is any one directly on what I would call "personal space".

Example: I'm coming back to my car after an evening out. I see someone trying to force the lock with a screwdriver. This is an attack on my *property*, and since I am nowhere near it I have no justification for even getting involved - it's not my job, and besides, it would not be safe, because the guy might try to use that screwdriver on ME. The right thing to do in that instance is to get out of sight and call the cops. After all, cars can be repaired, and it's only a thing.

It's a whole different kettle of beefburgers if I'm *in* the car at the time. Getting *out* of the car is NEVER a sensible option, because if you're in control of a motor vehicle you are effectively carrying a 1000kg battering ram between your fingertips, and giving up that advantage would be stupid. The car, in that situation, is my "personal space" - it is, essentially, me, and if you attack it, you're attacking me.

I would apply this to road rage situations. I would never, under any circumstances, get out of my car to remonstrate with another driver. It's a pointless and extremely aggressive act. Furthermore, I can *see* no reason for getting out of your car except to go and attack the driver you're annoyed with.

Therefore, if I am faced with an aggressive person of unknown capabilities and armament (is he a karate expert? has he got a knife? is he on drugs?) approaching my stationary car, I will NOT get out of my car to defend myself. I will do the reasonable thing and leave the scene at speed, through and over his body if necessary to the nearest police station to report the attack.

If that is not possible (traffic queue perhaps), I will defend myself using the tools at my disposal - i.e. the car (I invariably leave a full car length gap in front of me in traffic queues to give me room to do precisely that. It also makes insurance claims simpler if the person behind me runs into me, because I don't then follow on and hit the car in front of *me* because I have plenty of space). I fully expect that this would land me in court, because despite the fact that the thug was out of HIS car and therefore demonstrably intent on doing ME mischief, he is still protected by the law he was breaking.

To boil it down: I believe that criminals should not be protected by any law *during* the commission of a crime. Once they start behaving themselves again, then they can go crying to the authorities, but while they're in my house in the middle of the night I don't see how they should be allowed to waste police and court time complaining about the treatment they received. If they have no use for the law, they should expect no protection from it.

The principle I would work to as a victim would be "you're allowed to make sure you're safe". So if you render an intruder unconscious, and he's the only one there, you can't then calmly go and find a knife and slit his throat for good measure. Handcuff him, tie him up, drag him into the street, but once you're safe from immediate harm, well, you're safe, you've no reason or justification to do anything more violent.

But if, in your non-considered opinion in the heat of the moment you believe your only safe way of disabling a conscious intruder is what turns out to be a lethal blow, whether it be with a bare hand, a knife, a toothbrush or the bonnet of a moving car - that should be your prerogative as the victim of an attack. Nor should you be expected to rationalise your choice of defence method to some guy in a court. "I was being attacked" should be all the defence you need. Reasonable force is a fine and dandy concept when you're standing in a room full of well-dressed reasonable folks, but when you're being held against the wall of a pub with a broken bottle to your throat such niceties shouldn't even cross your mind, and nor should they be expected to.

The only question should be "were you safe?", and if the answer is "no" then nobody is in a moral position to question your actions.

The "you" in that question can and should of course be extended to cover your partner, children, guests, friends, acquaintances and if necessary complete strangers if you're that way inclined. Personally, I'd tend to have a sliding scale depending on circumstances. If I'm attacked, or my partner is attacked, or a member of my familty is attacked, I make no distinction. If I saw a stranger being beaten up in the street, I'm ashamed to say I'd actually stop to think before I went to defend them, because I'd place my safety above theirs. But if I could safely intervene (and that would be a very difficult judgement to make), I would, and I would hope someone else would do the same for me.

Does that help?

H.

Principles:

1. It is NEVER -- under any circumstances -- "OK" to kill someone.

2. In an imperfect world, in very specfic circumstances, killing someone is the only thing do to (even though it's not OK).

3. We, the imperfect people, sometimes believe we are in a "Principle No. 2" situation and kill : we will be judged - by our peers and (hopefully) by the courts - according to circumstances and the "reasonableness" of our reactions rather than the "OK-ness" of taking a human life).

4. Civilisation progresses as we find solutions to limit the application of Principle No. 2

5. Believing you have the "right" to take a life is WRONG. Taking a life can only be considered as justified in application of Principle No. 2.

This topic has given me a lot of think about. Thank you for posting it.

Deni:

"Believing you have the "right" to take a life is WRONG. "

Does that apply even to your *own* life?

H.