Jump to content

Your home is your castle

Dante

By Dante
in General

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

And as such is it not your right to defend it? Recently a newspaper here ran a poll among it's readers ( or a vote if you prefer) to find out what idea people would most like to see implemented in parliment. The most popular idea was to be brought up in the House of Commons (for those of you that unerstand the British parlimentary system) and given a chance of becoming law.

The most popular idea was to give homeowners the right to defend their property by any means necessary. The MP who was designated to support this proposal was quite upset. He called it 'unworkable,' and "blood-stained," adding that the people who had brought this up were (language) [hide] "bastards" [/hide] .

But frankly I agree with the readers. Your home is, as the saying goes, your castle. Righteously defendable by any and all means necessary up to and including the deaths of any traspassers threatening the owner's life or property. To steal from or harm someone while they are away from their home is bad enough but is more or less unavoidable.

But your home is completely different. It is your property. You have paid for it. You have invested time, money, and effort in this building (or at least you should have done) and if some fool dares to attack you on your own ground then they have initiated your wrath and you are perfectly justified in removing them (though admittedly killing may be a bit extreme, but after all it was their fault).

Now not only can people no longer defend their homes but if the criminal is somehow hurt while in the process of carrying out the deed then they can actually sue the owners for damges! How wrong is that? If someone falls over a tripwire and into a pool of acid while trying to rob me then it's their fault! Not mine!

Of course this is just my opinions. I believe that I should be able to set traps, build walls, and boil oil for potential trespassers. And if someone gets hurt, they knew the risks. More fool them.

I'm expecting this topic to be controvertial (if not then I'm equally pleased) so can anyone prove me wrong? Or if not wrong then unjustified?

Atomic Mitten

Atomic Mitten

Posted
Posted

I totally agree with Dustscout on this issue !

England is unbelievable now.

An example :

A 15 year old boy recently appeared in a Coventry Crown court,he was charged with causing grievous bodily harm to his friend,who is now paralyzed for life.

What he did was he stole a car and his friend was a passenger,he asked the court to take into account 95 ! previous offences.

He was sentenced to 12 months juvenille prison.

12 months for ruining someones life ! my god !

It seems the law in the UK is an ass.

If you kill someone you get 5 years Max

If you break in somewhere you get maybe 12 months,or if at all.

If you rob a bank, you get 15 years

So life seems to be a very cheap commodity,money seems to be the all important factor in our justice system,if that's what people can call it. >:(

If someone decides to break into your home,then it should be at their own risk !

If anyone tries to break in at my home ,they wouldn't get out again,not in one piece anyway.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

If someone decides to break into your home,then it should be at their own risk !

If anyone tries to break in at my home ,they wouldn't get out again,not in one piece anyway.

And you won't have to worry about any long term jail time. ;)

You may get house arrest.

The judicial system seems to be a joke these days, it can takes years to gte a verdict or the sentences are very low.

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

I Norway, there's very little you can do if someone breaks into your house. However, I wouldn't be just watching some guys robbing my house. If I was able to do something, I would've done it. We just have to be careful with killing trespassers ;).

However, we're likely to get sued afterwards, though.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Well, I half agree with you, Dust Scout. The half disagreement comes from your idea that you should have the "right" to instantly shoot anyone who accidentally stumbles into your back yard. I don't think I have to point out how that could cause countless innocent deaths. If the guy breaks into your house, then I agree with you.

Mahdi

Mahdi

Posted
Posted

I'm with Edric here, sure you should have the right to defend your possesions, but only with reasonable force.  Someone breaks in and picks up your vcr, you don't have the right to shoot him in the head.

That person breaks in and starts threatening you with a knife, then you can shoot him in the head.

Same person sees you have a gun turns and runs, then you don't have the right to shoot him as he is no longer a threat.

In Canada at least the rules for reasonable force are:

They have fists, you can use a knife, pepper spray, or club.

They have knife, pepper spray or club, you can use a gun.

This, of course, depends on whether they are threatening you or not.  If they are running away, they are no threat.

In Procyon's case, for example, he would have been perfectly within his rights to drop the fucks.

Warskum

Warskum

Posted
Posted

Its not only England were punishments arent hard enough, in holland a boy walked into his school, walked straight to a teacher and shot him, becuz the teacher had hin suspended, the teacher is dead i wonder how long that boy has to go to jail, my geuss is max 5 years.

nampigai

nampigai

Posted
Posted

Well I agree you should be able to defend your home, but I don't agree that it should be a right to own guns. If you can defend it without then by all means, but the false safety the guns brings and the fact that it will then be easier for criminals to own them aswell aren't IMO worth the risk.

But as I said, if anyone forced their way to my apartment, I'd give them a good asswooping and let them leave in an ambulance.

Khan

Khan

Posted
Posted

I agree with Atomic, you should fire a warning shot first, unless of course you have no option (i.e. you are under a direct threat).

Egeides

Egeides

Posted
Posted

Isn't it better to have a law that permits to throw someone out, instead of shooting him?

1- The ground may be your property, but the guy on it is not.

2- Law has no right to kill someone because he does something that's not correct. So why should you have this right while normally you your rights by law?

2b) Espescially when you are in position that is potentially biased and where normally you have to let the justice act, not judge and sentence yourself

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.