I beleive that you should have the right to protect yourself and your property, but this actually makes my stomach churn
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27243115
To think that somebody if the story is right, would effectively set a trap and sit up with a gun is something that I find quite disturbing
|
Extracts from the piece:
"It is unclear what the teenager was doing inside in the garage."
"The state allows residents to protect their homes with deadly force when they believe they are going to be harmed, said his lawyer, Paul Ryan."
"We know with no question the individual entered the garage," Mr Ryan said. "Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed."
I don't see a problem - he shouldn't have been there.
|
"I don't see a problem - he shouldn't have been there."
DE - sorry to be harsh, but it is a very big problem. Just because someone is where they shouldn't be, it doesn't give someone else the right to kill them.
As for this American law, which apparently gives people the right to kill others "when they believe they are going to be harmed" - it really does need scrutinising. How sincerely does the person killing an intruder have to believe they are going to be harmed? Harmed in what way? Is stealing a few cheap tools from a garage evidence that harm is being caused, and is therefore an acceptable reason for killing the perpetrator?
The concept of proportionate force seems to be non-existent, which cannot be right.
|
On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.
From the article. So not only was a trespasser shot, he was entrapped as well.
Entrapment is dodgy enough even when employed by the police as it can argued the offence would not have taken place had it not been invited.
Property owner will I think get away with it due to the address, and probably will still sleep at night too. Doesn't mean it's right though, still breaks one of ten commandments etc.
|
"I don't see a problem"
What if the chap had just gone to read the electric meter, or gone to retrieve his cat that had gone missing and he'd spotted it going into the garage etc? What if he'd just gone to find the owner to tell him ''scuse me, mate, did you realise that your missus had left the garage door wide open."?
|
Read a similar story to this one recently where two teenagers were killed by a home owner in the States.
Said home owner killed one of them after they were incapacitated by his first shot. Put the gun under the girls chin and pulled the trigger. I am all for defending yourself and your property but there has to be a point when it just goes too far!
|
"The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association"
No surprise there then.
|
"What if the chap had just gone to read the electric meter, or gone to retrieve his cat that had gone missing and he'd spotted it going into the garage etc? What if he'd just gone to find the owner to tell him ''scuse me, mate, did you realise that your missus had left the garage door wide open."?"
OK, OK perhaps I was a little quick in dismissing it quite so readily.
But, having had my share of being on the receiving end of crime it makes my blood boil when miscreants frequently get away with it. When caught the penalties are usually feeble. We've often here referred to the motorist paying more harshly for failure to comply with a man made law when compared to moral issues such as nicking and so on.
The entrapment argument does not wash with me. You shouldn't go nicking stuff - end of ! So, if a sting operation is set up to catch no-gooders at it then more power to the entrappers -however tempting it may be to nick that purse, car or whatever it is wrong and the bad uns need dealing with.
DCI Gene Hunt where are when we need you ?
|
>>The entrapment argument does not wash with me.
Surely entrapment is used to catch criminals in an area where crime is high, hopefully with a view to catching repeat offenders and offering appropriate punishment.
Entrapping people who nick something with a view to summarily executing them is murder. If the police did it there would be an outcry and we stopped executing people for petty theft a few generations ago.
|
Whatever the rights, whatever the wrongs, how can killing young people for trespassing be something to justify?
The concept of "reasonable force" must exist in law.
But I am somewhat angry and saddened every time I find out it doesn't exist in people.
And even more so when people/organizations, such as the NRA, try to defend that lack of "reasonableness" as a right.
|
>>But I am somewhat angry and saddened every time I find out it doesn't exist in people
There are horrible stories in the news all of the time and sometimes I do wonder if there is any "good" out there.
I then read something like this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27254375 and a small act by a young man has clearly impacted so many people that some some faith is restored.
|
>>The entrapment argument does not wash with me. You shouldn't go nicking stuff - end of !
Difficult. In one way I completely agree with you, but...
I have two other thoughts;
Firstly we should be seeking to prevent crime, not encourage it. We should be trying to help people stay off a criminal path, not encouraging them onto it and then punishing them.
Secondly, I think it changes the moral dilemma in a way that I just know I am not going to be able to explain. It seems to me that resisting a cherry that someone insistently dangles in front of you is quite different to whether or not one goes out to seek cherries of one's own accord.
If you see what I mean.
Not unlike the reprehensible "honey traps" used to find out whether a partner would cheat or not in the US.
|
Drunk paranoid tooled-up Americans can obviously be a bit of a menace. No doubt we have some equivalents, despite our deplorably strict firearms regulations, which penalise ordinary gun freaks like me without bothering criminals.
I don't think I'd give anyone a 12boreload of SSG over a stolen chainsaw.
|
>
>> I don't think I'd give anyone a 12boreload of SSG over a stolen chainsaw.
>
Don't have a gun. But anyone who tried to steal anything of mine would find a worn down cricket bat making fast contact with their knees.. and a sharp knife with their fingerprints would be found at the scene. I was scared for my life your honour..
The pfd would never walk again.. he came at me with a knife..
Edit
the Criminal Injustice System favours the criminals.. see the banged up crook who got compensation paid for his losses in prison whilst his victims have yet to receive anything..The reason of course is that lawyers have got to make money defending the indefensible.. see the howls about legal Aid as the gravy train stops.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:00
|
Really?
If someone was trying to steal from me, then I would stop them. But I don't think I'd feel the need to do more than was "necessary".
I don't think I'd hesitate to be as bad as necessary, but neither do I think I'd be all "Urban Hero" about it.
|
If someone was trying to steal from me, then I'd think about challenging/stopping them. However, if they're adult males then they're 80% likely to bigger and stronger than me who's well into the bottom quartile of European male build/weight etc.
That's what insurance is for.
|
The smallest, weakest, most pathetic person in the world can still get a knife into you if he;s lucky.
Going against someone is something to be taken seriously, however big/small, strong/weak, or practiced you are.
|
|
Much as people fantasise about being some sort of Dirty Harry figure at the end of the day it just isn't worth risking injury or worse to protect property. There's nothing I own that worth a knife in the guts.l
|
Protecting your property - Dulwich Estate
