Pay no attention to the Public - the bastards

[aerocontrols]

MP calls Radio 4 listeners 'bastards' over vigilante vote

It was trailed as a "unique chance to rewrite the law of the land". Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme were asked to suggest a piece of legislation to improve life in Britain, with the promise that an MP would then attempt to get it onto the statute books.

But yesterday, 26,000 votes later, the winning proposal was denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation" - by Stephen Pound, the very MP whose job it is to try to push it through Parliament.

Mr Pound's reaction was provoked by the news that the winner of Today's "Listeners' Law" poll was a plan to allow homeowners "to use any means to defend their home from intruders" - a prospect that could see householders free to kill burglars, without question.

"The people have spoken," the Labour MP replied to the programme, "... the bastards."

Having recovered his composure, Mr Pound told The Independent: "We are going to have to re-evaluate the listenership of Radio 4. I would have expected this result if there had been a poll in The Sun. Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs in your window?"

source (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=477413)

How amusing...

I might suggest to Mr. Pound that he stop using the royal 'we' and say instead the more correct 'they'.

[Ed]

What an elitist bastard.

Not you, Aero, the limey.:D

[Reginald]

The moment that MPs start to believe that they have exclusive rights on common sense and that the electorate are fools, they cease to be of any value at all. The saddest thing is that this bloke's constituents will vote for him again in the next election, simply because he is standing for a party that they "like". Personally I think that he should be sacked.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Reginald:
The moment that MPs start to believe that they have exclusive rights on common sense and that the electorate are fools, they cease to be of any value at all.

Try substituting "eurocrat" for MP, except that particular "moment" was reached a long time ago.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Reginald
The moment that MPs start to believe that they have exclusive rights on common sense and that the electorate are fools, they cease to be of any value at all. The saddest thing is that this bloke's constituents will vote for him again in the next election, simply because he is standing for a party that they "like". Personally I think that he should be sacked.

Of course MP's are all that stand between us and a Mobocracy! Government is too important to be in the hands of the plebs, we might do something rash (like execute Socrates - ah, that's been done already).

Goverment of the people, for the people, by the - elite?

Perhaps the MPs are all that stands between turning our oligarchy into a democracy!

[Reginald]

Here's a couple of simple comments that could be uttered by an MP that would make me vote for them..

"I tried something that didn't work out, I have to admit I made a mistake, I am wiser for that mistake, it won't happen again"

or (tip of the hat to Sir Cyril Smith) "Although it is a policy that I am personally opposed to, the majority of my constituents are for it, therefore I will vote FOR!"

"At the end of the day I am a public employee, it would be for the best that we remember that".

Flying pig???

[Richard G]

Something like this hardly registers with the sheeple in the UK. They don't want to defend themselves. They submit willingly to those who would victimize them.

[corplinx]

Home invasions are in vogue nowadays. Can't blame people for wanting assurance that if they defend their castle they won't be put on trial for it.

[The idea]

How are "uninvited guests" at the legislature treated?

[gnome]

I've heard plenty of anecdotes.... does anyone have any hard numbers about how often homeowners are prosecuted for defending their home? Some figures I'd like to see:

(for a relevant country or region, in an arbitrary recent time period)

1. What percentage of home invasions where the intruder is harmed, leads to legal action against the homeowner?

2. What percentage of such legal actions are successful?

Basically... how big of a problem is this?

My speculation is that the injured intruder does not make a very popular plaintiff.

[CapelDodger]

from gnome:
Basically... how big of a problem is this?
The whole thing centres around a man who was convicted of murder for shooting a teenager twice in the back with a shotgun as the kid was trying to climb out of a window. The gun was illegally held - he'd lost his licence after shooting at his ex-in-laws' house. The local Citizens' Watch had ejected him as a dangerous maniac with an obsession about killing pikey burglars. A jury heard the case and convicted him. The jury of public opinion, fed anything but the facts by the British gutter-press, felt otherwise. There are very few of these cases.

[Martin]

An elected member of the government commenting on proposed legislation? Shocking! He should be strung up by his ears for such an affront.

[The idea]

Why not just require homeowners to give notice to potential intruders? Every home would have a sticker on a front window that says either:
"any intruder may be shot"; or
"excessive force not used against intruders."

[gnome]

It's a phrase I hate, but I have to mention it:

"If it ain't broke..."

[The Don]

The protection of one's own property is always a thorny issue. For every anecdote of a "poor defenseless homeowner" who has been prosecuted for defending their property, there's usually a story of some thug who uses the defence argument as a means of covering up some assault.

Just what is reasonable ? Am I entitled to shoot someone who strolls into my house unarmed ?

[Flo]

Originally posted by The Don
The protection of one's own property is always a thorny issue. For every anecdote of a "poor defenseless homeowner" who has been prosecuted for defending their property, there's usually a story of some thug who uses the defence argument as a means of covering up some assault.

Just what is reasonable ? Am I entitled to shoot someone who strolls into my house unarmed ?

The exact question is: "is death penalty without trial the appropriate, just and civilised answer to burglary" ?

[The Don]

I'd even be against serious wounding unless it were strictly necessary (whatever that means) for self defence

[Bentspoon]

a quiet little butterfly amidst the cocaphony of the reactionary

quote from "Flo"

The exact question is: "is death penalty without trial the appropriate, just and civilised answer to burglary" ?

Thank you for that. Too bad it will slide by without the slightest consideration from those that think the teenager got what he justly deserved.

Bentspoon

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Richard G
Something like this hardly registers with the sheeple in the UK. They don't want to defend themselves. They submit willingly to those who would victimize them.

Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better
Ignore facts just insult a nation because it makes me feel better

Repeat ad nauseum...........

[xouper]

Flo: The exact question is: "is death penalty without trial the appropriate, just and civilised answer to burglary" ?Yes. If you invade my house to burgle it and put my safety at risk, that is irrefutable proof that you are guilty of the crime. No need for a trial, the facts of the case are already clearly established and you are guilty. How can anyone refute that? There is no wiggling out of it on a technicality. The lesson should be clear - if you don't want to risk getting shot by the homeowner, then don't invade his home illegally, ya moron. I can't believe people here are making the homeowner the bad guy in this kind of scenario. WTF??

[The idea]

Why must there always be a one-size-fits-all solution?

Give notice to potential intruders. Every home should have a sticker on a front window that says either:
"any intruder may be shot"; or
"excessive force not used against intruders."

[Flo]

Originally posted by xouper
Yes. If you invade my house to burgle it and put my safety at risk, that is irrefutable proof that you are guilty of the crime. No need for a trial, the facts of the case are already clearly established and you are guilty. How can anyone refute that? There is no wiggling out of it on a technicality. The lesson should be clear - if you don't want to risk getting shot by the homeowner, then don't invade his home illegally, ya moron. I can't believe people here are making the homeowner the bad guy in this kind of scenario. WTF??


Then why keep judicial organisations and police forces, if anyone is allowed to make his/her own judgement on the nature of the crime and the appropriate punishment to be meted out ?

I'm not against the use of appropriate force to prevent or repell an attack, but I can't see how you can justify killing someone without judgement after the fact, if you pretend you live in a civilised society, that is.

[shuize]

A suspect who is arrested in his home or in public should be entitled to all the safeguards a civilized court system affords him.

A burglar in my house at night, however, will not be extended those same legal protections.

And you may very well be right. Maybe he only wanted my TV set. Unfortunately for him, however, I won't be taking the chance. Rather than risk my family's safety, I'll happily stand in front of a jury of my peers and defend my actions. (See the first sentence above.)

(Insert appropriate self-defense story as necessary)

"I don't know what happened, Your Honor. I told him to 'Get Out!' but he just going toward the kids' room ... I wish he were still alive today so he could tell us why he was acting like such a maniac."

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Flo

I'm not against the use of appropriate force to prevent or repell an attack, but I can't see how you can justify killing someone without judgement after the fact, if you pretend you live in a civilised society, that is.

How is a panel of judges or a jury going to objectively determine what constituted or appeared to constitute appropriate force to the homeowner at the time of the burglary.

Bear in mind that theres a big diff between sitting in a nice warm court-room and facing a burglar in the dead of the night who's intentions and possible armaments you do not know.

If someone breaks into my house, I will use every ounce of force I can muster to elimante the threat. In the worst case scenario, its better to spend three years in the clink for manslaughter than for me and my loved ones to get raped and murdered in our own home.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


How is a panel of judges or a jury going to objectively determine what constituted or appeared to constitute appropriate force to the homeowner at the time of the burglary.

Bear in mind that theres a big diff between sitting in a nice warm court-room and facing a burglar in the dead of the night who's intentions and possible armaments you do not know.

If someone breaks into my house, I will use every ounce of force I can muster to elimante the threat. In the worst case scenario, its better to spend three years in the clink for manslaughter than for me and my loved ones to get raped and murdered in our own home.


I know perfectly what it feels like, it actually happened to me. Years ago, a man entered my appartment at night and refused to leave on request. I still don't know what exactly he wanted, and I didn't wait for an explanation before I hit him with a frying pan, hard enough to leave him unconcious on the floor until the police arrive. It was determined that my use of force was legitimate, since it could be supposed that my physical integrity was at risk given the circumstances. However, I was told by the police that I would have been in trouble if I had hurt or killed him in less clear circumstances, like if he was actually on his way out without having actually attacked me. And I consider it is perfectly right, in a civilised society.

What I'm saying is that it is OK to defend oneself, but not to apply self "justice" of the "that %&ç// was leaving with my TV set and might have been a danger to me and my own, he well deserved death" kind. At least not in a civilised country ...

[xouper]

Flo: I'm not against the use of appropriate force to prevent or repell an attack, but I can't see how you can justify killing someone without judgement after the fact, if you pretend you live in a civilised society, that is.You asked my opinion, and I gave it. If you want to argue the issue, I'm not interested.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Flo
What I'm saying is that it is OK to defend oneself, but not to apply self "justice" of the "that %&$B!&(B/ was leaving with my TV set and might have been a danger to me and my own, he well deserved death" kind....

That kind would be me.

But if he's on his way out the door with the TV set, if it'll make you happy, I'll do my best to just knee-cap him.

[xouper]

Flo: At least not in a civilised country ... Civilized people don't burglarize or invade other people's homes, either.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Flo



Then why keep judicial organisations and police forces, if anyone is allowed to make his/her own judgement on the nature of the crime and the appropriate punishment to be meted out ?

In YOUR home? A person is in YOUR home and there is some sort of judgement involved? You don't have to mind read in a situation like that. The person has demonstrated a contempt for you, the law, your well being. What would you do, negotiate? Your opening sentence presents a false dicotomy. We are talking here about a person who has violated the sanctity of your home, which is by common law your castle, a place of no further retreat.

I'm not against the use of appropriate force to prevent or repell an attack, but I can't see how you can justify killing someone without judgement after the fact, if you pretend you live in a civilised society, that is.

A civilized society has rules. One is your right to the sanctity of your home.

[Ed]

Interesting comment in the Telegraph today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$2DTO0ZFV5GM1DQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/opinion/2004/01/06/do0602.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/06/ixnewstop.html

[Flo]

Originally posted by Ed
In YOUR home? A person is in YOUR home and there is some sort of judgement involved? You don't have to mind read in a situation like that. The person has demonstrated a contempt for you, the law, your well being. What would you do, negotiate? Your opening sentence presents a false dicotomy. We are talking here about a person who has violated the sanctity of your home, which is by common law your castle, a place of no further retreat.

A civilized society has rules. One is your right to the sanctity of your home.


Yes, my home is my "castle" and "place of no further retreat". It doesn't mean I can do all an anything I want in it. Using force (even sometimes extreme and lethal) to defend myself and property is legitimate. Deciding what the penalty should be for violation of my home belongs to the society at large, not to individuals. If I kill or maim someone in my "castle", I have to answer to society as to the legitimacy and proportionnality of my response to tresspassing.


As stated before, I have and will not hesitate to use force to defend myself, I don't see anything wrong with it. I see wrong however with thinking that I would be automatically justified in killing whoever I see as a threat under the pretext that the sanctity of my home has been violated.

Being civilised, to my mind, doesn't mean being defenceless or turning the other cheek, but trying to moderate one's reaction to offences together with not automatically justifying instinctive reactions.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Flo

If I kill or maim someone in my "castle", I have to answer to society as to the legitimacy and proportionnality of my response to tresspassing.


Why should the rest of society know what was the best thing to do when they werent there?

From the article Ed links to:


But that's the point: you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene.


BTW Ed, I thought the article was quite a good one except for the end:


It's interesting that, during the recent security scares, the terrorists seem to have been targeting BA and Air France. They seem to reckon they've a better chance of pulling something on a non-US airline. I hope that's not true, and that when the next shoebomber bends down to light his sock, he'll find himself sitting next to some gung-ho Brit rather than the "peace and solidarity" type


Given that we know that the AirFrance flights were grounded because of a toddler, a Chinese granny and a Welshman, he might be better of leaving that one alone..........

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london



Given that we know that the AirFrance flights were grounded because of a toddler, a Chinese granny and a Welshman, he might be better of leaving that one alone..........


Toddlers drool and yap and cry
Grannies are violent drunks, particularly Chinese grannies
And the Welsh, less said the better

:D

[daenku32]

So then you can shoot Jehovah's witnesses? Just invite them in and tell the cops they broke in.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by daenku32
So then you can shoot Jehovah's witnesses? Just invite them in and tell the cops they broke in.

Good grief! thats a brilliant idea!

[Luke T.]

If you shoot a burglar, make sure you kill him. That way he won't be able to tell his side of the story.

A man's home is his castle. If some scumbag breaks in, he should know his life is forfeit. I am not going to take the chance of trying to nick him or hobble him in some way. I am going all the way. Taking no chances. I have a family.

My dog would probably kill him first anyway.

[CapelDodger]

Does anyone have a figure on how often Americans are shot when they are mistaken for intruders?