Thugs scared off by pocket knife

[dknguyen]

WHat happens if you don't use enough force and then the assailant comes back and later in court argues some of what he did was valid because it was in self defense (assuming you're still alive to take to court)?

 

[Hero999]

WHat happens if you don't use enough force and then the assailant comes back and later in court argues some of what he did was valid because it was in self defense (assuming you're still alive to take to court)?

I suppose it depends on the situation, i.e. the evidence and witnesses. I imagine that if it's not possible to prove who threw the first punch, it'll come down to the nature of the injuries gained by both parties and who's the biggest: I think the jury will probably tend to take the side of the smallest person or possibly whoever has the worst injuries.

To be honest, my greatest fear would be the danger of them attacking me again; suppose I've managed to throw my attacker to the ground and pin them: what do I do?

If I release them, there's a chance they might re-attack.

If I incapacitate them, I could kill them or injure them and get done for murder of GBH.

Ideally I'd like to tie them up or blindfold them but it's not like I carry those sort of things with me.

 

[Birdman Adam]

I would probably restrain them until I can get some help.

 

[HarveyH42]

Never been in the situation, but have thought about it a few times. Figure if someone seem intent on doing me some physical harm, they deserve what they get. If they broke in my house, I'd be inclined to kill, as I'd be sure they wouldn't be coming back for another try (courts don't seem to care enough). I'm not a trained fighter, so would want to end it quickly, and cleanly. Figure I'd have a better chance going all out, then trying to be restrained and gentle about it. If the robber is dead, there is only my side of what happened, and of course I have a large assortment of 'deadly' weapons to donate to the loser, just make sure it's legal.

Yeah, sounds kind of uncaring. Thieves seem to be progressive, each time they get away with something, the start thinking of bigger targets. They also don't seem to spend much time in jail. Maybe they don't hurt me, but what about the next victim? My way, it's over, end of career, no more victims. I think I would deal with the killing better, than being worried about him coming back, or coming home from work, and find my house a mess, anything of value gone. Perhaps it won't stop other thieves, but I'd at least know I capable of handling the situation, and surviving.

Of course, it's just dreaming, one can never really be sure how one will react in any situation, until you are in the situation. I just never gave up easy, so its pretty certain I wouldn't back away, and hope he leaves me with my life. We've had quite a few 'Home-invasion' type robberies, where the thugs break in, and just start shooting, then snatch what ever they can carry off. Pretty sure they aren't random though, and has something to do with drug dealings. One up in northern Florida, they killed all the adults, and stole a safe, thinking it was stuffed full of cash. Mostly, it was legal documents... You never know, maybe once the get what they came for, they kill you anyway, no witnesses... You only get one shot at life, shouldn't give it away cheaply.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Don't you teach reasonable force?

I think you should, it's fair enough putting them down hard, but continuing to beat someone once they're on the floor is not reasonable force so you deserve to get done for murder, if they die or GBH if they're severely injured.

'Reasonable force' is what allows you to walk away unharmed - many of the techniques end up with breaking arms or legs (only takes 20 pounds of pressure, correctly applied) - do what you must to end it there and then, don't leave them able to get up and attack again.

Your argument is like the idiots who ask why the Police don't shoot armed criminals in the arm or leg, it's all down to minimising risk and danger.

 

[ljcox]

In Australia, the law only allows you to kill someone in self defence.

We also have strict gun laws similar to the UK.

The argument that a gun will protect you is a fallacy. The criminals can choose the time, place & victim. And if they thought that you may have a gun, they would be likely to shoot first.

The statistics show that many people are killed accidentally by guns. For example, there have been cases where children have shot someone (often another child) with an adult's gun because they thought it was a toy.

Some years ago, I could have been shot by my wife's cousin. He pointed his shotgun at me and then, fortunately, he decided to check whether it was loaded; it was. He said "I didn't think it was loaded" I was not impressed and said "that's what they all say"

 

[Pommie]

At least in Australia the police are armed. In the UK they aren't and so the UK police shout "Stop or I'll errrrr, shout stop again".

Mike.

 

[HiTech]

Thieves seem to be progressive, each time they get away with something, the start thinking of bigger targets. They also don't seem to spend much time in jail. Maybe they don't hurt me, but what about the next victim? My way, it's over, end of career, no more victims.
... You never know, maybe once the get what they came for, they kill you anyway, no witnesses... You only get one shot at life, shouldn't give it away cheaply.

You and I are not the court, nor the police, so it's not our job to protect the future of society by choosing to remove them from this planet - that would be vigilantism which is then another problem issue. As for getting one shot in life, that may be so, but these special situations demand quick reflexes brought on by sound thinking. You see, all these complications arise for the law abiding folks of society and all because some people choose not to behave properly. It's the innocent, law-abiding citizens in society that are forced to jump through the hoops. Once agani proving that life isn't fair to everyone.

 

[Hero999]

At least in Australia the police are armed. In the UK they aren't and so the UK police shout "Stop or I'll errrrr, shout stop again".

There's little need for the police to be armed because most criminals aren't.

There are armed squads and some specially trained officers carry CS spray or tasers.

I believe that not bearing arms in our police force's constitution; something about it not being a paramilitary organisation.

 

[Reloadron]

Several post back Nigel said in part:

At one time an Englishman's home was his castle - unfortunately this is no longer true.

Interesting enough as here in the US there is a set of laws adopted from English Common Law. They are know as Castle Doctrine or sometimes called Castle Law.

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that arose from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."

Now the thing with the US is that gun laws and gun control laws (firearms laws in general) are controlled to large extent by the individual states. Not all states have the Castle Doctrine, and many states strictly control firearms. Interesting enough is that states like California and New York have the most stringent gun control laws and also share in the highest crime rates. Apparently the criminal element doesn't follow the laws. Go figure huh?

Personally I am a strong firearms advocate. I strongly support an individuals right to posses firearms under our second amendment to the US Constitution. However, for me it isn't so much about the political aspects. I am not the guy who screams for gun rights to protect my home (Castle). I just happen to enjoy the shooting sports. The wife and I owned a nice little friendly gun shop for a number of years in Bedford, Ohio US. I enjoy shooting. As millions of Americans awake on a beautiful Sunday morning and head out to play golf I head to the range for a day of shooting.

I have a pretty large collection of firearms which considering I owned a gun shop is normal. I did extensive gunsmith work and focused on high power rifle accurizing for competition matches. I simply enjoy firearms.

For those residing in the US and have concerns about home defense and home protection I strongly suggest you check into your State Laws and in many cases Local Laws. What may be fine in one state may not fly well in a court of law in another state. Do not assume anything when it comes to the law.

Ron

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

There are armed squads and some specially trained officers carry CS spray or tasers.

Pretty well all Police carry chemical sprays these days - they also carry the extending batons, based on the martial arts Tonfa.

There's a difference in training through, Police are taught to strike 'soft parts' with the batons (bicep, thigh etc.) to cause minimum damage - we teach to hit the 'hard parts' (elbow, knee, shoulder) with the Tonfa, intending to smash the joints or bones.

 

[Hero999]

Sorry Nigel I think it's irresponsible to teach people to break bones and use beyond reasonable force to defend themselves.

The club I went to was responsible enough to teach the line between reasonable and unreasonable force and self control.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Sorry Nigel I think it's irresponsible to teach people to break bones and use beyond reasonable force to defend themselves.

The club I went to was responsible enough to teach the line between reasonable and unreasonable force and self control.

We'll all be happily stood up enjoying ourselves, whilst your's are all dead on the floor.

In self defence you REMOVE the threat - this requires them not to be capable of attacking again.

 

[Thunderchild]

I think the theory in the UK is that if your carrying a nife and "have to use it" you may end up in the position of it being used on you, of course this is obvious if you carry a knife without knowing how to use it and i'm sure many do. Running is a good option if you can run faster but personally I don't think the police are tough enough on criminals, there's no need to bother with rehabilitation, teach em what they will get if they do it again is the answer and yes the death sentence is highly appropriate in cases where it is proven beyond doubt that the person is quilty of murder. if the police stopped looking for "easy trouble" and went after the crimnials we would be a happier country, what I want to know is what use is a 5 foot whatever woman who probably knows best how to do her makeup going to be against real trouble, the police are refere to as the "force" I'd call them them a bunch beurocratic whimps and it starts at the top with al the politically correct BS like stopping a "white2 photographer just so that it cannot be said that we are preying on a particular minority.

I pubblic personality was recently arrested because he was found carrying a metal spike for a keyring, it was some sort of symbol and pretty legitimate, oh yes they wanted to take him to the cleaners but the simple fact was that the guy was trained to demolish a person without any wepons at all.

 

[HiTech]

In self defence you REMOVE the threat - this requires them not to be capable of attacking again.

Ok then, where does the line get drawn when a situation transitions from self-defense to self-offense?

 

[Thunderchild]

well my personal opinion on the matter is that if they deserve it they deserve it, if somebody attacks you they cannot complain about what they get back, if someone is planning on making a living from mugging people I would be only to happy that the first able person they attack disarm them for good, there is too much political correctness in our society and not enough justice

 

[ljcox]

At least in Australia the police are armed. In the UK they aren't and so the UK police shout "Stop or I'll errrrr, shout stop again".

Mike.

Yes, but whenever the cops shoot someone, the arm chair experts say "Why was this poor man shot? There are better ways to handle such situations"

I would like to see what they would do if they were in such a situation.

 

[Mikebits]

I found this article about gun control in the UK. Seems US is not so bad after all.
BBC NEWS | UK | Why Britain needs more guns

 

[Birdman Adam]

Wow, I have struck up quite a conversation!

EDIT: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Could not have said it better... And it is SO true.

I'm happy cops in the US carry guns. Otherwise, there's no 'force', just a guy with some spray and maybe a taser. If I was a criminal I would laugh at that.

 

[Hero999]

I found this article about gun control in the UK. Seems US is not so bad after all.
BBC NEWS | UK | Why Britain needs more guns

That article just discusses violent crime in general.

It doesn't talk about criminals owning guns.

If everyone were allowed to carry guns, then all criminals would too.

At the moment, most criminals don't carry guns because they don't need them.

I remain cynical that loosening gun restrictions would reduce violent crime.

I do agree the people should be allowed to defend themselves and that our law doesn't permit people to do so. I don't think that weapons are the answer though, for example, even allowing people to carry tasers would just mean the muggers ensure they taser their victim before they get the chance to defend themselves.

I think there are other reasons for the increase in violent crime, than gun control.