Re: Self defense injustice in the UK

On 6/5/2025 6:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Jun 5, 2025 at 3:13:08 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 6/5/2025 5:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Jun 5, 2025 at 1:22:00 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 6/5/2025 2:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Jun 5, 2025 at 11:32:30 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
   

    On 6/5/2025 1:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

      On Jun 5, 2025 at 8:26:42 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
     

      On 6/5/2025 12:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

        On Jun 4, 2025 at 5:06:29 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:
       

        On Sat, 31 May 2025 22:48:37 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
        wrote:
>

        I'm guessing that, if he'd tried instead to choke her to
death, then her
        knifing him would've been allowed as self-defense ...suggesting that
        rape isn't a serious enough offense to warrant lethal reprisal.
>

        I'm undecided where exactly the dividing line should be in
        self-defence cases but it definitely ought to be shy of "lie back and
        think of the Empire"!

                I you've broken into my home, then you're leaving in a body bag if
  I have
        anything to say about it. My dividing line is the threshold of the
    doors and
        windows.

>
      Well, that does kinda elevate simple burglary into a capital crime.

          If you don't want to be shot to death while breaking into someone's
home to
    steal from them, there's a 100% effective way of guaranteeing that never
    happens to you: don't break into people's homes and steal from them.

>
    That has a smidgen of resonance with "let them eat cake".

        No one has a right to my property and they certainly don't have a right to
  put
    me and my family in danger when trying to take it.
        Fuck around and find out.

>
  Chest-thumping aside... your proposed law, as I extrapolate it, awards a
  homeowner cancellation rights over the life of any intruder.

    Pretty much, yeah. If you're breaking into my home, I presume you to be a
  danger to me and mine. To do otherwise is suicidal. And regardless, even if
  they're only there to steal and I can somehow know this as they're kicking
in
  my front door, I'm neither legally nor morally required to abandon my home
to
  thieves or stand aside and let them have their way with my property.
    And more to the point, if *you* value my TV more than your own life, why
  should I do any different?
  ...

>
But "I" thought you were gone for the evening ...so my *intent* was
larcenous but not physically threatening.

 As you're kicking in my door I don't know that and I'm not required to wait to
find out whether you're going to shoot me or not as you invade my home.
 moviePig, is this you?
 https://ibb.co/M0Gwpp4
 

   E.g., do you think we should shoot shoplifters, who afaics have the same
lack of principle?

 Let's just start with arresting them-- something California Democrats won't
do-- and go from there.

Well, in a way, that image is very much to the point ...i.e., how draconian we want our laws to be, and whether it should depend on how much the offense pisses us off.  E.g., it's common to fantasize extreme means for dealing with food theft from the office refrigerator...