If you deem someone in your family in immediate danger, then of course that would be your first action. I have never called the police before, and I think my lack of experience in these situations may be giving my views of the police a little rose-tinted. I believe it should be the minimum possible, pick up something heavy and swipe at his legs perhaps, there is absolutely no need to go further than that unless circumstances dictate otherwise.skalpel wrote: I must say, I wouldn't go fishing around for my telephone (I dunno about you, but I don't usually wake up in the night and immediately pick my phone up before leaving the bedroom) and then wait a few minutes to explain the situation to emergency services while some criminal is in my little girl's bedroom, and then follow him in after having decided upon my own definition of 'minimal force'. My concern for her safety far outweighs my concern for his, he is getting knocked out or disabled through whatever means it takes.
Right to self-defence
Re: Right to self-defence
- cbrad NUFC
- Forum Legend
- Posts: 8156
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:38 pm
- Location: cdrab's House
Re: Right to self-defence
To be fair in that situation you would put your daughter's safety before your own, many people would want to beat the thief up.skalpel wrote:I must say, I wouldn't go fishing around for my telephone (I dunno about you, but I don't usually wake up in the night and immediately pick my phone up before leaving the bedroom) and then wait a few minutes to explain the situation to emergency services while some criminal is in my little girl's bedroom, and then follow him in after having decided upon my own definition of 'minimal force'. My concern for her safety far outweighs my concern for his, he is getting knocked out or disabled through whatever means it takes.Paco wrote: No, you're not going to wait, the first thing to do is call the police, then use as minimal force as possible to deal with the intruder.
Precedents can still be set by landmark cases, I'm struggling to think of how to explain this better and will consult my sources for a better argument in this respect.
-
- Tribal Elder
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:18 pm
Re: Right to self-defence
You'd have to be extremely lucky to get an intruder who just stops and admits defeat after one blow to the legs; aim for the head or upper body. Get them before they get you. If there up stairs, at night, they are a major threat. A normal intruder would just get what they could from downstairs and escape before detected. If they've come up stairs they mean to hurt or threaten you.Paco wrote:If you deem someone in your family in immediate danger, then of course that would be your first action. I have never called the police before, and I think my lack of experience in these situations may be giving my views of the police a little rose-tinted. I believe it should be the minimum possible, pick up something heavy and swipe at his legs perhaps, there is absolutely no need to go further than that unless circumstances dictate otherwise.skalpel wrote: I must say, I wouldn't go fishing around for my telephone (I dunno about you, but I don't usually wake up in the night and immediately pick my phone up before leaving the bedroom) and then wait a few minutes to explain the situation to emergency services while some criminal is in my little girl's bedroom, and then follow him in after having decided upon my own definition of 'minimal force'. My concern for her safety far outweighs my concern for his, he is getting knocked out or disabled through whatever means it takes.
Re: Right to self-defence
If there's a robber in your house, and he's unarmed, then I believe you have the right to fight them, knock them out and call the police.
But you feel the intruder has a weapon, then f*** it. You should be allowed to maul the bastard, especially if you have kids in your house. Tough s*** IMO. If he's coming into a house with a family in it with a lethal weapon, then they deserve all they get.
There was a recent case where a father caught a man raping his young daughter, and he beat him up so badly that the rapist ended up dying. Some say this may be wrong and the man shouldn't have been so brutal, but the courts decided that the man was defending his daughter, and the sight of his daughter being raped meant he deserved sympathy.
I'm pretty sure most of us would lose control if our daugther, sister, mother were being raped by some cronut.
But you feel the intruder has a weapon, then f*** it. You should be allowed to maul the bastard, especially if you have kids in your house. Tough s*** IMO. If he's coming into a house with a family in it with a lethal weapon, then they deserve all they get.
There was a recent case where a father caught a man raping his young daughter, and he beat him up so badly that the rapist ended up dying. Some say this may be wrong and the man shouldn't have been so brutal, but the courts decided that the man was defending his daughter, and the sight of his daughter being raped meant he deserved sympathy.
I'm pretty sure most of us would lose control if our daugther, sister, mother were being raped by some cronut.
Re: Right to self-defence
Sorry but this is ****. If I've been woken in the middle of the night by a burglar I'm not going to f*** around calling police and trying to guess what the minimum force necessary to ensure my own safety and my family's is. My only concern will be killing the f***er as quickly as possible and the checking the house for any others who may have been with him. You don't know how violent this guy is, what his intentions are, whether he's armed or unarmed, whether he's alone or with others. You don't f*** about in these situations, you don't risk your family's safety and security to ensure the poor little burglar doesn't come to any more harm than is necessary. They're the aggressor in this situation, you do whatever's necessary to protect yourself, their wellbeing doesn't come into it.Paco wrote: I believe it should be the minimum possible, pick up something heavy and swipe at his legs perhaps, there is absolutely no need to go further than that unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
On the Tony Martin situation I'm on the fence. His life clearly wasn't at risk, but if my house had been repeatedly ransacked over the years I wouldn't want to let the little cunts get away so they can come and have another go later in the week. They're not victims. They put themselves in that situation, they knew the risks.
Re: Right to self-defence
I agree. If they are breaking in and committing a crime, then they lose all their rights IMO.AbsolutelyGlorious wrote:Sorry but this is ****. If I've been woken in the middle of the night by a burglar I'm not going to f*** around calling police and trying to guess what the minimum force necessary to ensure my own safety and my family's is. My only concern will be killing the f***er as quickly as possible and the checking the house for any others who may have been with him. You don't know how violent this guy is, what his intentions are, whether he's armed or unarmed, whether he's alone or with others. You don't f*** about in these situations, you don't risk your family's safety and security to ensure the poor little burglar doesn't come to any more harm than is necessary. They're the aggressor in this situation, you do whatever's necessary to protect yourself, their wellbeing doesn't come into it.Paco wrote: I believe it should be the minimum possible, pick up something heavy and swipe at his legs perhaps, there is absolutely no need to go further than that unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
On the Tony Martin situation I'm on the fence. His life clearly wasn't at risk, but if my house had been repeatedly ransacked over the years I wouldn't want to let the little c**** get away so they can come and have another go later in the week. They're not victims. They put themselves in that situation, they knew the risks.
I'm not saying you should go for the kill straight away, but you should be able to beat the crap out of them, and call the police.