From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IG you are as socially inept as you are legally.
First of all, most people in this country would feel a great deal happier
with the ability to make their own choices about self-defence. Some people
would choose to use a firearm for this purpose, others would choose not to
and you or anybody else has no right to dictate from their ivory tower who
could or should use what. It is ironic in fact that you are issued
handcuffs, a baton and gas for your own protection ANYWHERE while we have
nothing, and dare we use any or carry any of those items we would get
arrested by YOU for doing so.
The core constraints allowing the lawful use of deadly force on another
person(s)is if that other person(s):
Has the ABILITY to kill or cause grave bodily injury to the victim
Has the OPPORTUNITY to kill or cause grave bodily injury to the victim
That the victim is in immediate JEOPARDY of being killed or suffering grave
bodily injury at the hands of that other person(s)
Other variances of this core is if the same A.O.J. criteria affect someone
else one can use deadly force in their defence.
In defining Ability a disparity of force argument is applicable. EG Armed
woman v's unarmed man is OK as there is a recognised physical disparity
between the genders. The same applys to armed disabled person v's able
bodied predator or an armed victim v's multiple unarmed assailants.
If one of the A.O.J. critera isn't fully met in the reality of the
circumstances it falls to the recognition of the situation as it unfolded
and the 'reasonable man' test of beleifs.
Finally there falls another test between that of Justifiable Homicide and
Excusable Homicide. The latter being that lethal force was not required in
the circumstances but it was an excusable response at the time. Terror, poor
light, chainfire, poor weapon choice and use.
Whilst this is not a comprehensive overview of the 'self-defence' defence it
is the core of it and it remains common law, not statute and is for a Jury
to decide upon the facts.
My belief is that a firearm is an eminently suitable tool for self defence
but it should be used as part of a layered defensive strategy that might
well involve retreat and non lethal and less than lethal weapons escalating
to the firearm. The firearm when used in these circumstances is rarely fired
but in the minority of deadly force encounters using a firearm, perpetrators
get shot and some die. Making the choice to use deadly force is never easy
and sometimes it may not be the right choice to have made.
However, criminal predators have a choice about their actions whether petty
or violent. My belief and that of 90%of the population is that when somone
chooses to invade your house, mug you in the street, sexually assault you or
a loved one, they have abdicated most of their rights to protection under
the law and deserve what is meeted out to them.
Poor burglars, car thieves, street robbers and vandals, sure some might end
up getting killed for their actions but you can bet that EVERY criminal
would begin to think twice about doing the crime if the 'time' meant
potential death from their victim.
Self defence is common law and is no different here than in the US with the
exception that Statute in the US helps to define rights of virtually
everyone to be armed for their defence. In addtion sensible measures like
'Castle Law' such as that in Florida and New Hampshire means that even if a
scabby burglar out to steal your TV is caught in your home you are legally
permitted to use deadly force to protect your property. The burglary rate in
New Hampshire is virtually zero.
If self defence is a non starter for you IG, give up your baton, gas, cuffs
and radio you wear out on patrol. When trouble comes for you, you'll be
empty handed and alone with no prospect of salvation. Then and only then you
might realise what being a victim is like and what everyone else out there
suffers for needlessly, because of cowards like you. The truth is you trust
nobody else with the same powers you have and use at will, whay are you any
better than anyone else - and don't say training. The infantile training
Police get compared to real instruction is appalling.
This country would be a far better place if the citizenry were able to
choose and deploy their own defensive measures, if we had 'Castle Law' and
if we halved the numbers of Police officers. New Hampshire doesn't need it
so why do we?
Guy Savage
--
One correction, the law in Florida does not ever entitle you to
use deadly force to protect property. If someone enters your
home and threatens you, you are permitted to use deadly force
to stop them, but you cannot use deadly force outside the home
unless you cannot retreat or if so doing would be inadvisable.
There is a FAQ about it on the Florida Dept. of State website.
(Yes they do other things than just certifying elections!)
One of the examples they provide is a court case in which
a man was threatened on his doorstep and shot dead the person
threatening him. He was convicted of manslaughter, because
his first response should have been to close the door and
retreat into his home.
The "home is my castle" concept is merely that you have no duty
to retreat from your home, and you can stand your ground if
threatened. In some States, Massachusetts is one, you do
have to retreat from your home if threatened. Other States
do allow the use of deadly force to protect property, but
I have to say you will get hammered in civil court if you
do it. I can think of a case in California where a man used
deadly force to stop a teenager from stealing the hubcaps off
the car lot he was guarding. He wasn't convicted of a criminal
offence but he was absolutely crucified in civil court.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
