PDA

View Full Version : How Much Self Defence is Too Much?



Rainraven
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 09:22 AM
New Zealand First law & order spokesperson Ron Mark today called for New Zealandís self-defence laws to be re-defined after questioning the sentence given to a victim who defended himself against a gang of thugs.

More (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0710/S00180.htm)

Here in New Zealand there have been cases of victims being charged for serious offences when they have been defending themselves. Another time a man was arrested as he shot a man who came into his gun shop and threatened him with a machete. The reason? In New Zealand you are required to keep your gun and ammunition seperate, his was fully loaded under the counter.

What are the laws for self defence in you country? What do you think counts as self defence and when is it too much?

theTasmanian
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 09:54 AM
here by the way the Law is stated you must lay down and take it:thumbdown

if you defend your self then it must be with no more force than you are confronted with.......the problem is convincing a court you did just that

BUT having said that there are case's of OLD people having shot a robber etc and getting a slap on the wrist

me having done Martial arts im classed the same as a person attacking with a knife :mad :(

from what i understand the Americans have some very good self defence laws especially in the home:thumbup

Angelcynn Beorn
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 10:15 AM
The law in England is theoritically, that you can only use as much force to defend yourself as the person attacking you is using. Ie, if they punch you, you're allowed to punch them back, but not to use a weapon to defend yourself.

It's patently ridiculous and there have been many cases where people defending themselves have been arrested and sentenced because of it. Essentially it's all down to the pacifistic and pathetic reshaping of the laws by liberals to try and turn us into a nation of helpless teenage girls.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 10:45 AM
Stuff the law. I used to be 100% non-violent, and whilst I still think that non-violence is the best means of pre-empting and preventing conflicts, I have started taking self-defence classes, because I was attacked, randomly, on a bus, and had to have my head x-rayed. The bus-driver looked the other way, and all CCTV footage was 'lost'.

At the end of the day, if someone is going to kill you, you have to be able to stop them. What are you doing to do if someone pulls a gun or a knife on you?

I am taking Krav Maga classes, and there is nothing nice or meditative about Krav Maga, as it is the Israeli IDF's derivative of 'Systeme' employed by Russian special forces.

As the chaos ensues, people are arming themselves with gun and knives, and we have to be able to defend ourselves, even if it means getting arrested and charged.

Rainraven
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 10:51 AM
What are you doing to do if someone pulls a gun or a knife on you?

The 'cool' thing in this situation is that you could then legitimately also defend yourself with a gun.

Oh, except you're not allowed to own a gun.

Not so cool :thumbdown

theTasmanian
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 10:53 AM
one saying i like.....its American too:D

"Walk quietly BUT carry a big stick"

be able :thumbup

Psychonaut
Thursday, October 16th, 2008, 09:21 PM
I went off for a couple of pages in this thread (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=100573).

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 12:21 AM
The law in England is theoritically, that you can only use as much force to defend yourself as the person attacking you is using. Ie, if they punch you, you're allowed to punch them back, but not to use a weapon to defend yourself.

That's the common law rule here as well.

Most states have additional rules. In some states, mainly urban northeastern states like Massachusetts and New Jersey, similar laws as Australia: Gun and ammunition must be kept seperate, and you are obligated to flee even if an intruder in your house rather than risk confrontation. Other states, mainly rural ones, have laws which allow you to 'stand your ground' and defend yourself against attackers, shoot intruders on your property, and/or carry guns on your person.

My personal opinion is that there shouldn't be any 'reasonable force' restriction: If someone initiates violence against you, you should have the right to defend yourself with whatever means at hand. Same with unauthorized presence in a residential home or threatening someone with a weapon in a robbery. If you don't want to get stabbed or shot in return for punching someone or breaking into a house, then don't go around punching people or breaking into houses. If someone starts a fight with you, you should have the right to finish it, the worst that happens is we end up with a few less yobs.


The same thing applies on an international scale. I don't think countries like the US, China, Russia, and Britain should be forced to act in a restrained fashion against countries like Georgia, Tibet, Afghanistan, or Argentina simply because those countries are less able.

Rainraven
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 01:02 AM
I feel much the same way. If I was being attacked and my options were being beaten to a pulp or knifing the attacker and possibly being arrested for it then I know what I'd do. Often police respond with heavier force than that taken by the attacker (such as the New Zealand case where a man wielding a golf club was fatally shot). So why are we expected to lay down and take it? Just like Angelcynn Beorn says, we are being told noot to defend ourselves and let the law defend us. Pity it doesn't seem to be working.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 05:35 AM
Good point about the police. In theory, we live in a classless society, and we only hire police to protect the citizens because we can't be awake and at home guarding our property all the time, the the police are just ordinary citizens like the rest of us-if they can use superior force (and almost always do), why not the rest of us?

Stormraaf
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 04:21 PM
In South Africa criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens. The law says you can only defend yourself with force if the attack on your life is "commenced" or "imminent", which to me sounds like, "don't do anything until you're dead."

The following might be noteworthy as well:

Safety and security in South Africa now means that self-defense may be defined as assault or murder. If the victim of a break-in shoots to kill, the intruder can kill him and claim justification. As Barry Ronge of the Sunday Times points out, this "effect[s] a switch that makes the victim of the crime the felon and turns the felon into the victim."

In a country where, as Ronge notes, husbands and children are routinely forced to watch while mothers are raped, victims must now "calibrate the extent of the menace" before defending loved ones. Even for giving chase, victims may now be prosecuted as aggressors.
from this article (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39139)

When faced with an intruder, I too would defend myself and my loved ones with pre-emptive force, regardless of the law. It's the only way to be safe. I view the government which created the current laws of self-defence in SA as a criminal organisation anyway.

Teuton
Friday, October 17th, 2008, 04:36 PM
Bleh.
Could be because government themselves are criminals.

Bugger them, I will defend myself.

Leonhardt
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 05:01 PM
What are the laws for self defence in you country?
The law varies from state to state, just like the tax laws.
http://www.legallawhelp.com/legal_law_channels/criminal_law/codes_by_state.html

These sites help gun owners when they are traveling to other states.
http://usccw.org/
http://www.usacarry.com/info_explaining_the_resources.html


What do you think counts as self defense and when is it too much?
Around my area they go by what is "reasonable", which I think is similar to what they have in GB and in SA. People can always argue in court that serious injury was imminent, and their actions were reasonable. Some people think it is only reasonable to run away, but I do not agree.
Here is an article on the use of force continuum.
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/civilian-force-continuum.htm

SouthernBoy
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 05:08 PM
If someone intends you bodily injury, you are justified in using lethal force to stop them. I also propound the use of lethal force to prevent and cease felonious crimes. :)

Deary
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 05:40 PM
If some stranger so much as steps into my home unwantedly, I should be able to use whatever force I please upon them. If someone has no respect for my privacy and my property, then they surely have no respect for me. Therefore, I'd be in immediate danger the minute that happens. I won't take no chances, and, thankfully, I have the right to do so. Nice to know some places in the world are still sane. Florida has Stand Your Ground/Castle Law.


It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

Telluride
Monday, January 12th, 2009, 06:04 PM
The law in England is theoritically, that you can only use as much force to defend yourself as the person attacking you is using. Ie, if they punch you, you're allowed to punch them back, but not to use a weapon to defend yourself.

It's patently ridiculous and there have been many cases where people defending themselves have been arrested and sentenced because of it. Essentially it's all down to the pacifistic and pathetic reshaping of the laws by liberals to try and turn us into a nation of helpless teenage girls.

I honestly don't understand how these sort of standards are allowed by the general public. Self defense should be about protecting your rights and the rights of your friends/family/neighbors. Criminals shouldn't be promised that their victims will be burdened by some notion of fairness when defending themselves.