All the more reason to (a) not try to take his things and (b) be prepared to defend myself in case he tries to take mine.
You seem to be mixing two things in your second point there. "Defend myself" is about protected a person (yourself, though equally valid someone else especially a member of your family), "tries to take mine" is about protecting your things. The two are not necessarily related, someone seeking to acquire your property may not be a direct threat to life and health of you or your family; it's simply stuff which can usually be replaced or recovered if the police catch the thief.
Yes, living in permanent fear of imminent death from your neighbours, if one or other of you makes the slightest ambiguous gesture. Absolutely preferable. No problems that I can see.
The two are not necessarily related, someone seeking to acquire your property may not be a direct threat to life and health of you or your family
Only if we're not there when the person tries to take our property. And if we're not there then it's a bit of a moot point either way.
Given the nature of acquisitive crime and the relative severity of sentencing for burglary vs murder, I think your supposition that anyone burgling an occupied house is planning to murder anyone inside unless physically prevented is unlikely to be the case. Most burglars in the UK go unarmed (again because the punishment for carrying a weapon is far higher than for burglary).
The two are not necessarily related, someone seeking to acquire your property may not be a direct threat to life and health of you or your family
Only if we're not there when the person tries to take our property. And if we're not there then it's a bit of a moot point either way.
If you actually believe that someone breaking into your shed at 3am is planning to serially murder your entire family (either before or after, I guess that doesn't matter), then... honestly, the putative burglar is not the problem here.
Given the nature of acquisitive crime and the relative severity of sentencing for burglary vs murder, I think your supposition that anyone burgling an occupied house is planning to murder anyone inside unless physically prevented is unlikely to be the case.
Anyone burgling a house they know - or even suspect - to be occupied must be prepared for violence to occur, whether a weapon is involved or not. What else are they going to do - politely take their leave should the owner protest?
I only know directly of one example of such a burglary - a friends wife was at home when three men burst through the door, tied her to a chair, threatened her with a cricket bat until she told them wher the car keys were, then made off in her car. I’d suggest that she would have been perfectly justified in using a weapon to defend herself had one been available.
It feels like there are some on this thread who think she should have told them immediately where the keys were, and maybe offered to make them a cup of tea while they helped themselves to the TV as well. After all, it’s only stuff.
The two are not necessarily related, someone seeking to acquire your property may not be a direct threat to life and health of you or your family
Only if we're not there when the person tries to take our property. And if we're not there then it's a bit of a moot point either way.
If you actually believe that someone breaking into your shed at 3am is planning to serially murder your entire family (either before or after, I guess that doesn't matter), then... honestly, the putative burglar is not the problem here.
What the hell would I be doing in my shed at 3am? But if I was there when someone broke in, then I’d assume that person was prepared to use violence against me. Not planning, perhaps, but prepared.
Any burglar not prepared to use violence against a person would presumably (a) not burgle an occupied house or (b) leg it as soon as someone appeared. And in both cases no defence of person or property would be possible. Any burglar who stands their ground long enough for any putative weapon to be used (bearing in mind I’m in the UK so guns aren’t included) has to be assumed to be preparing a violent response to my appearance.
So now we get into the nuance. You don't actually believe that your property is more important than someone's life. You're just engaging in macho performative bullshit. In other words, you're just like most 'libertarians'.
So now we get into the nuance. You don't actually believe that your property is more important than someone's life. You're just engaging in macho performative bullshit. In other words, you're just like most 'libertarians'.
I believe that I have the right to defend myself, my family and my property should the need arise (thus far, happily, it has not). I believe that right extends to situations where I'm present in the house (or car, or shed, or whatever) and a locked door has failed to discourage the attacker; in situations where I'm not present then I am - obviously - unable to do so. Should the attacker not run away or otherwise back down then I believe I have the right to continue defending myself, my family and my property until the attacker ceases to be a threat to either. If that requires the incapacitation - be it temporary or permanent - of the attacker then so be it.
At which point in that chain of logic would you disagree, and more pertinently what would you say I should do from that point onwards?
Personally, I'd drop the pseudo-philosophical/political posturing, and call it for what it is - an instinctive reaction that we probably all have to some or other degree.
You'd do it because you were scared for you life, not because you were fearlessly defending your property rights - which was your opening gambit. Honesty goes a long way.
You'd do it because you were scared for you life, not because you were fearlessly defending your property rights - which was your opening gambit. Honesty goes a long way.
Semantics. Or am I to believe that if someone broke into your house and immediately declared that nobody would get hurt as long as they didn't try to prevent him helping himself to whatever he fancied then you'd simply step aside and allow him to proceed?
No, but if it comes to killing him or letting him have the telly, it's bye bye telly.
I was mainly aiming at the sort of people who put up signs saying things like "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."
The distinction is a bit like this - police apprehend a vandal who makes off. I expect them to chase him. I don't expect them to shoot him as he flees.
No, but if it comes to killing him or letting him have the telly, it's bye bye telly.
Those are seldom the only two options, unless you consider the possibility of any form of resistance escalating into potentially fatal violence to be too great a risk.
You'd do it because you were scared for you life, not because you were fearlessly defending your property rights - which was your opening gambit. Honesty goes a long way.
Semantics. Or am I to believe that if someone broke into your house and immediately declared that nobody would get hurt as long as they didn't try to prevent him helping himself to whatever he fancied then you'd simply step aside and allow him to proceed?
No, you're just arse-covering now. We're talking about your ethics, and your stated intent that you'd kill someone who was trying to take your stuff. If you're rowing back on that now, fine. I'll take it for the blowhard crap it appeared to be at the time.
No, but if it comes to killing him or letting him have the telly, it's bye bye telly.
Those are seldom the only two options, unless you consider the possibility of any form of resistance escalating into potentially fatal violence to be too great a risk.
I usually have the option of stepping back. If that option has been taken from me, I can take whatever measures are necessary to defend my life, but not merely to recover my telly.
No, you're just arse-covering now. We're talking about your ethics, and your stated intent that you'd kill someone who was trying to take your stuff. If you're rowing back on that now, fine. I'll take it for the blowhard crap it appeared to be at the time.
That's not actually something I said. My first comment on this thread was that I'd rather live next to someone who was prepared to kill in defence of property than someone who was prepared to kill to steal property, because as long as I don't try to steal from the former they'd have no reason to kill me. You replied basically suggesting that people who are willing to kill in defence of property would very likely be willing to kill to steal it as well, at which point I said that's a good reason to be prepared to defend myself in case they try it.
Right from the start it's been about defending against a potentially murderous burglar. You made it so.
No, you're just arse-covering now. We're talking about your ethics, and your stated intent that you'd kill someone who was trying to take your stuff. If you're rowing back on that now, fine. I'll take it for the blowhard crap it appeared to be at the time.
That's not actually something I said. My first comment on this thread was that I'd rather live next to someone who was prepared to kill in defence of property than someone who was prepared to kill to steal property, because as long as I don't try to steal from the former they'd have no reason to kill me. You replied basically suggesting that people who are willing to kill in defence of property would very likely be willing to kill to steal it as well, at which point I said that's a good reason to be prepared to defend myself in case they try it.
Right from the start it's been about defending against a potentially murderous burglar. You made it so.
You are ignoring the Botham Jean incident in which a person willing to kill for their property, killed their neighbour who was not threatening their property.
Comments
Only if we're not there when the person tries to take our property. And if we're not there then it's a bit of a moot point either way.
Given the nature of acquisitive crime and the relative severity of sentencing for burglary vs murder, I think your supposition that anyone burgling an occupied house is planning to murder anyone inside unless physically prevented is unlikely to be the case. Most burglars in the UK go unarmed (again because the punishment for carrying a weapon is far higher than for burglary).
If you actually believe that someone breaking into your shed at 3am is planning to serially murder your entire family (either before or after, I guess that doesn't matter), then... honestly, the putative burglar is not the problem here.
Anyone burgling a house they know - or even suspect - to be occupied must be prepared for violence to occur, whether a weapon is involved or not. What else are they going to do - politely take their leave should the owner protest?
I only know directly of one example of such a burglary - a friends wife was at home when three men burst through the door, tied her to a chair, threatened her with a cricket bat until she told them wher the car keys were, then made off in her car. I’d suggest that she would have been perfectly justified in using a weapon to defend herself had one been available.
It feels like there are some on this thread who think she should have told them immediately where the keys were, and maybe offered to make them a cup of tea while they helped themselves to the TV as well. After all, it’s only stuff.
What the hell would I be doing in my shed at 3am? But if I was there when someone broke in, then I’d assume that person was prepared to use violence against me. Not planning, perhaps, but prepared.
Any burglar not prepared to use violence against a person would presumably (a) not burgle an occupied house or (b) leg it as soon as someone appeared. And in both cases no defence of person or property would be possible. Any burglar who stands their ground long enough for any putative weapon to be used (bearing in mind I’m in the UK so guns aren’t included) has to be assumed to be preparing a violent response to my appearance.
I believe that I have the right to defend myself, my family and my property should the need arise (thus far, happily, it has not). I believe that right extends to situations where I'm present in the house (or car, or shed, or whatever) and a locked door has failed to discourage the attacker; in situations where I'm not present then I am - obviously - unable to do so. Should the attacker not run away or otherwise back down then I believe I have the right to continue defending myself, my family and my property until the attacker ceases to be a threat to either. If that requires the incapacitation - be it temporary or permanent - of the attacker then so be it.
At which point in that chain of logic would you disagree, and more pertinently what would you say I should do from that point onwards?
You'd do it because you were scared for you life, not because you were fearlessly defending your property rights - which was your opening gambit. Honesty goes a long way.
Semantics. Or am I to believe that if someone broke into your house and immediately declared that nobody would get hurt as long as they didn't try to prevent him helping himself to whatever he fancied then you'd simply step aside and allow him to proceed?
I was mainly aiming at the sort of people who put up signs saying things like "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."
The distinction is a bit like this - police apprehend a vandal who makes off. I expect them to chase him. I don't expect them to shoot him as he flees.
Proportionality.
Those are seldom the only two options, unless you consider the possibility of any form of resistance escalating into potentially fatal violence to be too great a risk.
No, you're just arse-covering now. We're talking about your ethics, and your stated intent that you'd kill someone who was trying to take your stuff. If you're rowing back on that now, fine. I'll take it for the blowhard crap it appeared to be at the time.
I usually have the option of stepping back. If that option has been taken from me, I can take whatever measures are necessary to defend my life, but not merely to recover my telly.
That's not actually something I said. My first comment on this thread was that I'd rather live next to someone who was prepared to kill in defence of property than someone who was prepared to kill to steal property, because as long as I don't try to steal from the former they'd have no reason to kill me. You replied basically suggesting that people who are willing to kill in defence of property would very likely be willing to kill to steal it as well, at which point I said that's a good reason to be prepared to defend myself in case they try it.
Right from the start it's been about defending against a potentially murderous burglar. You made it so.
But we got there eventually.