Cube Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 the Americans have this right No, they go way too far in the opposite direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 No, they go way too far in the opposite direction. I'm not exactly sure how you can go too far in this regard. Either you have castle doctrine or you don't. Its a boolean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipaul Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I'm not exactly sure how you can go too far in this regard. Either you have castle doctrine or you don't. Its a boolean. Well surely... Knock person out = fine, good, bravo old chap etc Murder person = too far, bad, steady on old chap etc So there is some room for adjustment here. The whole thing is a bit of a grey area though, especially when it's so ambiguous as to what constitutes acceptable force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I don't think its always black and white, which makes it all the more difficult to ascertain whether homeowner intended to kill the robber or whether it was a necessary part of protection/accident caused by defence. There's probably a lot of factors... i mean who's to say homeowner didn't just invite the robber and made it out like he broke in. They can't just go on one persons word, but there should be leniency where its proved that there was some kind of defence going on for the homeowner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Again, I bring up the point that you have no idea what the burglar has in their pocket. If they do not surrender or explain themselves upon me discovering them, I have no choice but to assume they want to harm me or my family, and I really have no choice but to assume they're armed in some way. If I can deal with them without killing them, great, but that's not always going to be an option. If I was living somewhere that had castle doctrine and I owned a gun, I would point the gun at the intruder and tell them to get on the ground while I called the police. If they armed themselves, I would shoot them, because I can't take any chances. Yes, you certainly should use some discretion in practice, but my previous comment was talking more about how castle doctrine works, which in theory is black and white. The idea is that your house is your castle and you have a right to defend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellmeister Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 That description emasher just reeks of a gun happy culture you may be used to. I think here in the UK there is a far less likelihood of an intruder having a gun so firing at them is more likely to be deemed unreasonable force. The courts are more sympathetic because they do know you are the victim of a break in but being able to do what you want just because it is in your house is too absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 That description emasher just reeks of a gun happy culture you may be used to. I think here in the UK there is a far less likelihood of an intruder having a gun so firing at them is more likely to be deemed unreasonable force. The courts are more sympathetic because they do know you are the victim of a break in but being able to do what you want just because it is in your house is too absurd. I understand guns are more common here, but try replacing "gun" with "Knife" and "Shoot" with "Stab". I wouldn't call my country's culture "gun happy", but the average person, can still get a license for one, and so you still have to consider it here, but again I do understand they're less common in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts