Burglars have rights too!!
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
That remembers me of Madonna goes to jail?[^] (about time I'd say, but...) Weird how close law and LAW is, eh?
Off to in ~36 days
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
If someone is willingly committing a crime then I think that should be taken as ackowledgement of contract that they are waiving all rights to normal treatment under personal protection laws. If they are violating someone else's feedom why should they expect theirs to be upheld? :confused: Andrew McCarter wrote: Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? Nope, it's a good Monday morning - Dave looks at his clock, er, Monday afternoon - rant.
David Wulff
All goods worth price charged
-
If someone is willingly committing a crime then I think that should be taken as ackowledgement of contract that they are waiving all rights to normal treatment under personal protection laws. If they are violating someone else's feedom why should they expect theirs to be upheld? :confused: Andrew McCarter wrote: Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? Nope, it's a good Monday morning - Dave looks at his clock, er, Monday afternoon - rant.
David Wulff
All goods worth price charged
David Wulff wrote: If someone is willingly committing a crime then I think that should be taken as ackowledgement of contract that they are waiving all rights to normal treatment under personal protection laws. If they are violating someone else's feedom why should they expect theirs to be upheld? I quite agree. I'd hate to see too violent a swing towards the Adman Smith ideal of the sanctity of property and material over and above all else, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that if you break the contract with "polite society" then you are open to the consequences - especially if you are inside someone's home. I have to say that since the birth of my two children, if I caught anyone inside my home with malicious intent I wouldn't hesitate to use any and all means to protect them. Before, I might have cowered in my room whilst quietly telephoning thew police (I don't own a gun), but now I'd grab the nearest Tonka truck and go crazy!
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
In my view the rights burglars have are the right to be beaten about the head until senseless, the right to be stripped naked, tared and dusted with feathers. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
It's not a bit off... If you attack me, my loved ones, or my property you forfeit all right to treatment as a decent human being. If warnings and reasonable force are not enough to dissuade you, then deadly force is entirely appropriate. Any government that prevents citizens from, or punishes them for taking any and all steps necessary to secure their persons and property is guilty of a greater crime than any committed by any criminal in history. "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
-
It's not a bit off... If you attack me, my loved ones, or my property you forfeit all right to treatment as a decent human being. If warnings and reasonable force are not enough to dissuade you, then deadly force is entirely appropriate. Any government that prevents citizens from, or punishes them for taking any and all steps necessary to secure their persons and property is guilty of a greater crime than any committed by any criminal in history. "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
Roger Wright wrote: It's not a bit off... If you attack me, my loved ones, or my property you forfeit all right to treatment as a decent human being. I think you misread me ... I was saying that the argument that they have rights was "a bit off". I'm in agreement with you. Maybe it wasn't clear.
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
The unintended consequences of laws like this in the US is homeowners killing the crook, then either dumping the body or stuffing a knife in the dead crooks hand and claiming self defense.
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
Under english law you have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, including preemptive defence. In practice, if you have good reason to believe someone is about to attack you, then you can defend yourself without waiting to be struck. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
That's one of the things I like about the county I live in (Greene County, Ohio, U.S.). If I shoot and kill a burglar in my house, the sheriff is more likely to ask me "What kind of loads did you use?" rather than "Why did you violate this poor soul's civil rights?" In the end, I'm going to assume that it's me or them. If they invade my home, I'm going to do my utmost to ensure that they don't walk out alive, because the only safe assumption is that they intend the same for me and my family.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
Makes you wonder what the $%#$ they are thinking.....What are we supposed to do? Invite the burglars in for tea? It should be, "You have the right to shut the $%$ up. You have to right to see a paramedic after any questioning." I pretty much agree with the rest of the crowd.... criminals give up their civil rights once they start acting against society. The big questions that I have is, why do criminals get more rights that ordinary citizens? And why aren't the VICTIMS counter suing these idiots for emotional distress for having their homes invaded and crap like that? Back to our regularly scheduled program... Do Lipton employees get coffee breaks?
-
Makes you wonder what the $%#$ they are thinking.....What are we supposed to do? Invite the burglars in for tea? It should be, "You have the right to shut the $%$ up. You have to right to see a paramedic after any questioning." I pretty much agree with the rest of the crowd.... criminals give up their civil rights once they start acting against society. The big questions that I have is, why do criminals get more rights that ordinary citizens? And why aren't the VICTIMS counter suing these idiots for emotional distress for having their homes invaded and crap like that? Back to our regularly scheduled program... Do Lipton employees get coffee breaks?
The amazing thing is, in the case cited by the article the family members of the 17-year-old habitual criminal sought to sue the farmer for "loss of earnings"!!! They assumed that this idiot was actually going to get a job at some stage - not that it should even matter.
-
Under english law you have the right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, including preemptive defence. In practice, if you have good reason to believe someone is about to attack you, then you can defend yourself without waiting to be struck. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Madam, under coming english (UK) law you'll have to be aware that the criminal will sue you, if you use "reasonable force to defend yourself" and he/she gets injured. if you have good reason to believe someone is about to attack you, you'll have to be aware of the consequences of any counter action you take. Maybe you didnt notice, but the story is about UK.
Off to in ~36 days
-
That's one of the things I like about the county I live in (Greene County, Ohio, U.S.). If I shoot and kill a burglar in my house, the sheriff is more likely to ask me "What kind of loads did you use?" rather than "Why did you violate this poor soul's civil rights?" In the end, I'm going to assume that it's me or them. If they invade my home, I'm going to do my utmost to ensure that they don't walk out alive, because the only safe assumption is that they intend the same for me and my family.
Software Zen:
delete this;No kidding... I'm glad I live in Texas :) -Lee "Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a QTip!" - Homer Simpson
-
Maybe I've lived in the US for too long and some of my more liberal sensibilities heve been beaten out of me, but this just doesn't seem right! I'm not advocating a scenario in the UK whereby householders suddenly arm themselves with an assortment of weaponry, but I have to agree with the police officer in the article when he says that the criminal, by performing the act, has abrogated certain rights - the Hobbsian and Lockean argument that they are now in the State of Nature and as such are open to retaliation in any form. Anyway ... just seems a bit "off" to me! [EDIT] Sorry ... is this a Soapbox rant? [/EDIT]
I guess the issue at hand is to keep the monopoly of violence in thze state's hand. After all, (at least from an earlier report) the farmer seemed one of the "I shoot everyx friggin looks-like-a-burglar that climbs over my fence". However, even he liberal treehugger in me agrees that the instruments used for it are beyond common sense.
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen