Peter Kemp wrote in
:

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area,
when the police wouldn't do much of anything...

Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.

So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
fast over there.

No, I never claimed the police are not responsible for policing.

For the last time - in the UK you are entitled to use *reasonable
force* to defend *your life*, not your property, and if you have the
chance to run, then you should.

No,you should not have to flee a criminal,regardless of whether it's a
property theft or a act of violence.That's simply protecting crimminals
more than ODCs.

Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at
the wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
since).

Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
mouldering in his grave after being murdered?

"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence.

Not really. If I walk up to a drug dealer and shoot him, it;s still
murder if it's premeditated and not self defence. The fact he's a git
has nothing to do with it.

How about if he's shooting up one of your kids? There is such a thing as
justifiable homicide.


In this case it was * very* premeditated (obtaining an illegal shotgun
for the purpose), and it's hard to claim self defence when you shoot
someone who didn't threaten you and whom is running away.

If he didn't want to risk
his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
while committing a potentially-violent crime.

I'm not, I'm criticising the bugger who shot him. There is a
difference.

Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?

Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the
old guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?

No, they would have burgled the house and no one would have been hurt.

And just how does one be certain of that? Until after the burglary is over
and no one is harmed,it's solely up to the criminal.Things can change very
rapidly.Why should a ODC have to take such risks? To protect a lousy
criminal? No.Let the criminal bear the risks.


I tend to believe that human life is more valuabel than mere
possesions.

Not all human life.The right to own property is a basic human freedom.
Having to allow others to take that property without due process is anti-
freedom.It's also cowardly.

Certainly nothing I own is worth more than my life.
Except your life -is- at risk during a burglary.There IS a threat implied
by the burglar;leave me to take your possessions or suffer physical
harm.The burglar could decide to not leave any witnesses,could take a
liking to your pretty daughter or wife,or maybe want the ring that will not
come off your wife's finger,and he's willing to hack it off with a knife.

That's
what is insurance is for.

Insurance costs everyone.
IOW,you're willing to spread the costs of your tolerance for crime to
everyone else.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net