Should We Do What They Tell Us?

[SKB]

Beleive it or not but 'we' also have to go to court if we kill someone and we had better be able to exsplain why it happen. I think the right we are talking about is the right to defend yourself. Everyone has the right to defend themself. On the death penalty issue........ I've spent a lot time around criminals and I wish the death penalty was used a bit more! Criminals go to prison and the staff inside of the prison have to deal with them for the rest of the criminals life. Some get it and do not come back to prison, most do not and they just make other people victims when they commit more crimes.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Firstly I can argue from a 'we' point of view as this country chose to abolish the death penalty.

I was referring to the tendency I see on another forum I used to frequent that whenever a US/UK self defense/legal issue thing crept up, it took maybe half a page before one side or the other takes something they don't like about the other( and it's almost alwayys the gun thing) and away we go off topic and into flame wars, until 2 and 3 pages go on and, well, it can be summed up the polite way like this:

"Brits!" (middle finger):angry: "Yanks!" (first two fingers):angry:

And there's no need and I want to get it off that road.

Good thing too, because lo and behold.............

You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand what it is to live in a country where thankfully guns are still a rare thing. The police are still not routinely armed and for the public to have handguns in their house is something unheard of. Shotguns used for hunting or clay pigeon shooting are licensed by the police and must be kept in secure cabinets. A good deal of the country outside the big cities are still able to leave their doors unlocked. Gun crime is creeping in sadly, we seem to be importing a gun culture from America but not on the scale seen there.

*shakes head* I am not talking now about guns. I am talking about self defense across the whole spectrum. Guns are just one more key to one more door on that spectrum.

Secondly, no human being has the right to kill another human being, to believe you do leads to the madness and evil of the Nazis and their ilk.
Yes we kill for various reasons, self defence, fear, retaliation,by accident, by war etc but we must be very clear about these reasons many of which are justified but do not give us a right to kill. Someone may attack me or my family and I kill them in self defence, I should be able to explain my reasons for killing this person so that it will be deemed justified and unavoidable.There is no right to kill though sadly that may have been the correct action to take. The right to do something in law and the correct thing to do are two different concepts.

Is there a right to defend yourself? Absolutely, but again you can't approach it as your right to kill even though your actions may lead to a death. Everyone must be accountable in law or else you will have anarchy. I don't dispute your right to bear arms but I do dispute your right to kill.

Actually if you go over what I said in my first post :

when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

I said the same thing, I'm not talking about a "right " to kill but rather a *duty* to PREVENT unjust killing( the attacker arrogating to themselves the right to remove an innocent's right to exist, which is a "right" they do not possess), though it may require "going all the way".

I think if we were actually able to meet and talk we'd find we agree on more than we disagree.

Going back over the thread it looks like where things got sticky was over the point of home invasion and the degree of force to be used. You appear to take the view that it should not warrant a deadly force response and cite the case of our aforementioned idiot as an example( and I agreed with you, he handled it wrong as soon as the kid ran, and in his behavior in front of others prior to the incident). I didn't weigh in on that one just then, but I am of the view that I am not going to be the one to take chances that they "may" only be there to steal something. That being said, if I had drawn, and the kid had ran, under the laws of my country I have to let him regardless of if he has anything of mine or not.

Between the home invasion bit and the degree of sympathy to be shown to the criminal actually appear to be the only two instances where you and I seem to part company on any philosophical level.

Does this somewhat help uncross the wires?

 

[bydand]

You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand what it is to live in a country where thankfully guns are still a rare thing. The police are still not routinely armed and for the public to have handguns in their house is something unheard of. Shotguns used for hunting or clay pigeon shooting are licensed by the police and must be kept in secure cabinets. A good deal of the country outside the big cities are still able to leave their doors unlocked. Gun crime is creeping in sadly, we seem to be importing a gun culture from America but not on the scale seen there.

Actually Tez3, the same thing can be said from our standpoint as well about not understanding the others viewpoint. Unless you have lived in the States, you cannot understand that a good deal of this country outside of the big cities do not lock their doors either. House key? I would be hard pressed to find mine honestly, and I know that everybody in the neighborhood I live in don't have theirs either on a daily basis. It is all part of the whole neighbors looking out for each other culture that does still exist and flourish in MOST parts of the country here.

As for the drool monkey that used deadly force when it wasn't needed or warranted, was wrong on so many levels. Do I advocate shooting somebody for breaking into my home? NO! Do I advocate for the right to protect my family with the use of deadly force if the NEED arises? YES! Different situations; if you only want my crappy TV or material items, take them and leave - Make a move toward my kids bedrooms and continue to do so after a warning, I'll drop them in their tracks without a hesitation because there are small, trusting, defenseless people relying on me to keep them out of harms way, down that hallway.

I agree with Andy, I think person to person there would be a whole lot less difference in standing on things than there first appears, and a lot more agreement on different issues. Never totally agree, but shoot I don't always agree with my wife on issues either.

 

[Tez3]

I took issue with, as I've already said, the statement "If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that your life is forfeit if you come up against an armed homeowner and he chooses to take it."
The word 'chooses' indicates a situation that isn't threatening to the householders but where the householder is in control and chooses to kill a burglar. This wasn't about self defence where there isn't a choice this is about killing someone just because they broke into your home. No one wants a burgler but just because they want to nick your tv doesn't mean you have to kill them!

I rarely state things blandly as you seem to think. I started my sentence "You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand ........." I did not say you have to live in the country.I said maybe you have to.

I haven't and nor would I start posting inflammatory comments to start a USA v UK flame war on this forum. I find that ridiculous and vaguely hurtful. The 'gun' thing as you called it, is an emotive issue on both sides.

.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I haven't and nor would I start posting inflammatory comments to start a USA v UK flame war on this forum. I find that ridiculous and vaguely hurtful. The 'gun' thing as you called it, is an emotive issue on both sides.

.

I know you didn't have that intention. I was concerned about successive posts by additional parties which could lead that way (because I've seen it before on the other board I used to moderate for). I wanted to divorce the gun issue out of the main point for the very reason you cite, that it *is* emotive, in my experience to the point of derailing previous discussions like this where it's come up, my intention was not, in any way, to attack you, or to seem to be trying to take you to task or "play moderator"(though it might have crept in, old habits and all that) and I'm sorry if you read it that way, I will try to communicate better in future.

Things would be so much better if everyone would just agree to love cats.

 

[Tez3]

I don't go into arguments like that simply because I'm always right so there! :lol2:

I lurve cats!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

People who hate cats will come back as mice in their next life. Fact.

 

[Carol]

Things would be so much better if everyone would just agree to love cats.

AMEN!!

 

[bydand]

Tez,

Didn't mean to come across like I thought you were trying to stir the pot, I've read way, way too many of your posts to think you would do that. Sometimes I HATE the electronic medium for communication purposes, just too easy to read in my own preconceved notions and thoughts instead of "hearing" what the other has really meant. I knew what you were saying, but didn't come across too well myself. I didn't mean somebody HAD to live here to "get" it, I mean it jeeze even our own media doesn't get it most of the time, what I should have said was, "It would be helpful to live here to really understand".

The whole cat thing ... Guess I'm destened to be a mouse next time around. At least it is a step up from being a donkey this time

 

[Tez3]

No worries! I've been rushing what I write when I shouldn't, we've got a big MMA show on 7th July and the stress is big time! At the beginning of the week we had 20 bouts on, yesterday morning only 10! We expect drop outs but thats ridiculous, last night it was 14! the show is dedicated to the soldiers who didn't come back alove from Iraq and we are raising money for the Army Benevolent Fund.One of our fighters is an Army medic who had a bad time out there plus a couple of army instructors are fighting who lost lads they had trained before. As you see violence sadly a big part of our lives here at the moment.
Both my instructor and I are old enough to have served in Northern Ireland at the peak of the Troubles there, without going into it too much, the senseless and horrific violence there leaves a feeling that some people regard life, any life as cheap and it just upset me that someone could actually choose to kill someone rather than apprehend them. Of course if you have to defend yourself you do but it was the tone of that particular post that got to me more than anything else.

By the way my instructor hates cats too and horses! I love both!

 

[Tez3]

I thought I should probably expand a bit on the N Ireland thing as it pertains to this thread.
The paramilitaries of both sides have set themselves up as judge, jury and excutioners. The people don't go to the police, too intimidated usually by their own 'side', so they go to the paramilitary ie terrorists for 'justice' when they've been the victim of a crime. These terrorists then carry out punishment beatings, kneecapping or kill the suspected criminal. Many of these paramilitary gangs are in fact criminal gangs involved in drugs, prostitution and all the usual stuff. Despite what the public believed there were actually few, on either side, who were actually fighting for idealistic reasons.
I know this isn't widely known in America as it isn't in the UK!

 

[Carol]

Tez, you've spoken volumes with these posts. Thanks for sharing the info, and thanks for your service :asian:

 

[bydand]

Tez, you bring up a good point. I think a lot of us over here, and I am one for sure, forget the amount of violence you guys live with daily over there. We just do NOT live with the daily thought and reality of terrorism here in the States like you do over there. We have the gangs and other baddies, but they pale in comparison to the organized, well financed and armed terror groups you Brits deal with day after day.

Wish you well on your upcoming MMA show and wish I could be over there to show some support for your guys and girls who didn't come back either whole or at all. :asian:

 

[Tez3]

Exposure to prolonged violence can make you go one way or another I think,you value life more or you have no regard for life.
A car bomb was defused in London this morning set to go off when the people came out of the nightclubs.

It would be so much fun to have you guys at the show! - fighting? what I will do is pass on all your good wishes to the Garrison Commander when we hand over the money. I think I should start another thread seeing if we can 'twin' with any martial arts club attached to an American military unit!

ooo! total thread hijack, sorry ( well not very lol) :angel:

 

[jdinca]

I took issue with, as I've already said, the statement "If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that your life is forfeit if you come up against an armed homeowner and he chooses to take it."

Those were my words, not Andy's. If a burglar breaks into a home in the middle of the night, wakes up the homeowner who sees a stranger in a darkened hallway and gets shot by the homeowner, it's the criminal who put himself in that situation. The homeowner has the right to defend himself, his family and his home, even if that means taking a life. He should not have to ask "are you here to kill me, or just rob me?" before pulling the trigger. If by exercising his right to self defense, he kills the criminal, then it's on the bad guy, not the homeowner. If the bad guy puts up his hands, or runs away, then the trigger shouldn't be pulled.

I'm not talking about shooting a kid in the back while he tries to run away here, I'm talking about being in a situation where you don't know what the intent is. Killing someone should be an absolute last resort, but you shouldn't have to play a game of 20 questions before determining that your life is threatened. I give a great deal more leeway here to the elderly.

The word 'chooses' indicates a situation that isn't threatening to the householders but where the householder is in control and chooses to kill a burglar. This wasn't about self defence where there isn't a choice this is about killing someone just because they broke into your home. No one wants a burgler but just because they want to nick your tv doesn't mean you have to kill them!

No it does not indicate a situation that isn't threatening to the householders. The homeowner could "choose" not to pull the trigger and lose his life instead, or be beaten, or raped, or forced to watch as his loved ones are beaten and raped. The homeowner could "choose" to pull the trigger to prevent that from happening. Remember, we're talking about a situation where the intent is not known, nor if the intent is going to change because the "just a burglar" is now confronted by the homeowner/witness.

The burglar should have no feeling that he has the right of free passage through somebodies home, just because he's only going to steal their belongings. Taking a life should be the last choice but if confronted with no other option, or unsure whether or not your life is truly in danger, you should be able to make that choice. The victim should not have to determine the victimizers intent before defending himself.

I don't own a gun Tez3 and I doubt I ever will. There are nights I forget to lock my front door and I would love to go back to the days where that wasn't even an issue, but it is. I live in a safe neighborhood but I've still had two cars broken into in my driveway. If I have to defend my home, I will do everything I can to do so without taking a life but if that's the only way, and I choose to do so, then that's the way it will be.

Btw, if it weren't for the prevalence of guns in this country, we'd still be a British colony. :uhyeah:

 

[jdinca]

I thought I should probably expand a bit on the N Ireland thing as it pertains to this thread.
The paramilitaries of both sides have set themselves up as judge, jury and excutioners. The people don't go to the police, too intimidated usually by their own 'side', so they go to the paramilitary ie terrorists for 'justice' when they've been the victim of a crime. These terrorists then carry out punishment beatings, kneecapping or kill the suspected criminal. Many of these paramilitary gangs are in fact criminal gangs involved in drugs, prostitution and all the usual stuff. Despite what the public believed there were actually few, on either side, who were actually fighting for idealistic reasons.
I know this isn't widely known in America as it isn't in the UK!

I can definitely see how living through this would sensitize a person towards vigilantyism (is that even a word?) but that's not what this discussion is about. In the above situation, you and I are on the same page.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

How about this?

Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.

The rest of us can make our own choice as to whether to shoot him in the back of the head, cleave him with a Kukri, or beat him down with a bat.

We will all just have to live (maybe not in the first case) with our decisions.

Rual America rocks because if you do have to kill an intruder, you can bury him in the woods and noone has to know a thing=)
(Lime, more than 6 feet deep, throw some rocks over the carcass.)

 

[Kacey]

From your first post, in which you appeared to be advocating disobeying authority because you disagree with some of the reactions to your own actions (bold added):

Yes, the Brass, or the Whores as my ex-Patrolman Sensei would call them, will advocate taken it, but I love how the cheif pig thinks he can predict what would have happend. The punk might have shot him and his Mom for the Hell of it, punks are getting worse, not better, many Gangs want their prospects to kill before granting full membership.

Talk to street cops and you'll hear a different story.

I went to summer school in a real bad are when I was 15, and because it was an instant expulsion for fighting, I basically let myself get hit and pushed around in an incedent.

Well I end up in the Office with the Principle and the school Cop, when the Principle left the room, the cop told me, "You know you do have a right to protect yourself, you have a freebie from me, he messes with you again, beat his *** and I will back your play."
I did and he did, one ghetto punk found out that not all white boys are wimps and he got expelled for being a punk, the cop stood there and watched me beat him down and then pulled me off when I started to stomp on the jerk.
No Brass would ever condone that, but many a street cop like to see a Thug get what's coming.

When an Authority figure tells you to just take it, you need to think "Nazi" and disobey that UnAmerican order.

From your most recent post, in which you seem to be advocating murder, and the covering up of that murder, as the only appropriate response to an intruder:

How about this?

Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.

The rest of us can make our own choice as to whether to shoot him in the back of the head, cleave him with a Kukri, or beat him down with a bat.

We will all just have to live (maybe not in the first case) with our decisions.

Rual America rocks because if you do have to kill an intruder, you can bury him in the woods and noone has to know a thing=)
(Lime, more than 6 feet deep, throw some rocks over the carcass.)

I do not disagree with the portion of your latest post which I bolded; I do, however, find your open espousal of murder - especially in the fashion you have stated - to be heinous. Heaven forbid anyone ever enter your home uninvited with a non-violent intent - for myself, I have no interest in murder as a means of preventing theft - that's why I have insurance, as nothing I own is worth dying for; preventing assault on myself or my loved ones is a different issue, and provokes a different, and stronger, response.

I fail to see, however, how you shifted from advocating disobeying authority in all instances - regardless of circumstance - to advocating murder as the only solution - regardless of circumstance. Are you equating these two concepts? Saying that murder is the only possible solution? And when, and how, did we shift from disobeying authority to home invasion?

Vigilantism is illegal - as much to protect the public from persons such as yourself, who apparently consider yourselves above the law, as to uphold the law itself.

 

[bydand]

How about this?

Those who feel they dont have the right to kill an intruder, then dont, see if he takes your TV, or peice out of your wife or child.

The rest of us can make our own choice as to whether to shoot him in the back of the head, cleave him with a Kukri, or beat him down with a bat.

We will all just have to live (maybe not in the first case) with our decisions.

Rual America rocks because if you do have to kill an intruder, you can bury him in the woods and noone has to know a thing=)
(Lime, more than 6 feet deep, throw some rocks over the carcass.)

You know, it is just posts like this that make everybody that lives in the country or rural area look like a bunch of uneducated hillbillies; we are not damn it! That may have been an acceptable attitude in 1807, maybe even 1857, but you know, this is 2007 now. The whole <spitting a stream of brown tobacco juice through missing front teeth> "Wa, ba-God, I'd jus shoot the Sum-btch show up my place, dat'd teach em!"<spits on boots again> is, or should be, a long-gone way of thinking. Protect your family and yourself sure; blow somebodies brains out over a TV or anything that can be replaced at Wally World or K-Farts? Darn, hope I get too sit on the jury to put that psycho away from society for a LONG time.

I wasn't going to post a reply, but it just grated on me the more I thought about it. I am a long, long way from being a tree-loving, criminal hugging, type of person, but thank you God, I have at least evolved out of the Neanderthal stage.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

I am advocating shooting someone who is in my house, when totally uninvited, that is not murder that is defense of one's home, murder is when you plan to kill someone and then carry out that plan.
I am advocating killing, not murder, there is a difference.

And maybe I was being funny about the Rural America commnet and maybe I was not, but there are many bodies of intruders and other offenders in deep holes than you might think in rural America, many out there do beleive in "No Tresspassing! Those found here after dark will be found here in the morning!"

Now the mere presence of someone in my house is surly not a reason to kill them, this gets very situational, but if they are in my house, when my family is sleeping, if he is in the middle of the house, I will give him 1 chance to drop to his knees and put his hands on his head, if he moves in anyway I see as threatening, he gets blasted. If I catch them near my children's room he will be shot in the nearest available target, be it his face or the back of his head.

Anyone still remeber little Jessica Lundsford in Fla, who was kidnapped by a crackhead right out of her house, with the grandparent's there?

You want to give an animal like that any chance or quarter?
You can say yes here and umong your enlightend freinds, but deep down, you know I am right that people like that should die.

People used to be told to not enter the homes of others uninvited, there is no reason to walk into anothers house without permission. People used to accept the consequences of such actions.

Your way of thinking gives the criminal to many advantages, you give him entry, position, operational tempo and the upper hand, he might be ready to kill you with out thought, you better be able to preempt, or be yet another person whos martial training was a waste of time.

And you should get a job writting for John Edwards, the way you play with words and statements is worthy of Orwell.

Yes I advocate disobeying Authority when it hampers my ability to defend myself, my family or the way things are going, my society, I do not and have not advocated disobeying all laws.

I am not advocating going out and looking for a criminal to kill, I am advocating killing a criminal if you must, WHEN THEY COME AT YOU OR YOUR'S.

Are you a martial artist or a moralist? The martial arts were originally devised by warriors and those who wished to protect themselves from horrible assults, all this Kane from Kung Fu morality is a realitivly new thing, yes it existed before, by those who were ruthlessly stomped in the end, but most martial arts that survived were not moralistic religeons, they were methods to sripple capture and mostly kill, all the BS is about 100 years old or less.

I can almost hear the coffee shop whine in your voice while saying this, prey for the status quo we have today, as you might be fortunate enough not to come acroos an intruder at 2am, but if the status quo crumbles, your attitude will make you a slave, a catmite or food.

A Hard line (with the training and willingness to back it up) defends a loving and safe home.
A soft line defends nothing and invites Preditors.

SHUGYO!