What I was/am curious about is the pride some people seem to show in the fact that a homeowner can be charged with a serious crime for attacking a would-be burglar, like this is a good thing, somehow “more civilized” than the alternatives. That’s the attitude I don’t understand.
but that wasn’t the question you asked. You asked “why do criminals have more rights than non criminals” which actually assumed that the statement (“criminals have more rights than non”) is true, a statement not claimed anywhere I saw. It was that, that I consider, and considered, to be an inflamatory way of presenting your (now) stated query.
You can have my spoon when you pry it from my cold dead porridge.
Well, wring, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Since the post I was responding to in my OP (“Criminals here can fairly regularly be armed. Self-defense is, to all intents and purposes, illegal. Harming a criminal in the act of a crime is illegal and will result in prosecution.”) put forth the notion that criminals are proteced against retrebution while commiting crimes, I’d say that whatever inflamatory content contained therein is his responsibility, not mine. I was merely responding to it.
I was just flabbergased by the response, especially the statement that I’m an ‘Aussie hater’. I’m quite certain I’ve never, ever, anywhere expressed hatred of Aussies, especially considering that I’ve got a couple of friends who are Aussies, and I have for a very long time wanted to travel there. I’d certainly not think it was a great place for my wedding if I ever get married if I hated Aussies.
Anyway, I’m sorry if I came off a bit strong. The accusation floored me, as did the idea that I had at some point done something to deserve it. It just seemed bizarre.
And yeah, I like you too. 
But this “Self-defense is, to all intents and purposes, illegal” is, quite frankly, not believable – it isn’t supported by citations and flies in the face of common sense.
and we certainly disagree. They do not, in fact, claim that non crimnals have more rights. The theif will certainly face prosecution for theft, and folks who harm others will also face prosecution for assault. the claim ‘self defense is to all intents and purposes’ is a claim, not a fact, and wasn’t supported by that poster by specific links, cites etc. and it also did not say ‘criminals have more rights than non’
to spell it out even more plainly:
a. people who steal are subject to prosecution.
b. people who harm others are subject to prosecution.
so the fact that one person is a theif, subject to prosecution for that, is not ‘open game’ for deliberate physical harm by another does not in any way suggest that the theif has ‘more’ rights than the other. The fact that some one steals from you does not give you the right to steal from them, nor does it give you the right to harm them.
you may have felt the other poster ‘started it’, and had you not jumped in with your off the chart (IMHO) upgrading of it, I might have zeroed in on them for that, but 'criminals have more rights than non"??? sheesh. even you seem to be backing away from that presently.
Yes, it is, I’m afraid. I realize that that requires you to actually read the content of my posts, but that’s the price you pay.
Well, I’m apparently debating with you, and you’re a riddle par excellence.
You can say that, but it would have no meaning for anyone besides yourself. If I didn’t own any books and didn’t regret not having any, would it then become ok for the rest of the world if a country banned books? Simply based on my preferences for the things I own, no it would not.
Now, me personally, I couldn’t care less what they did with crossbows, but I am a collector of swords. So, your personal preference for the things you wish to own and use is hardly of any value to me, hope that clarifies things a tad.
You know, after the crossbow thing several people have asked me why we don’t own a gun. Well… I’ve never owned a gun, never desired to own one, never fired one, don’t (at this point) feel a need to own one…
Truthfully, we picked up the crossbow at a flea market for dirt cheap, more as entertainment/conversation piece than with intent to actually use it. Fact is, I don’t particularly feel a need to walk about armed.
The other thing - you have to consider that crime rates vary enormously. There are vast areas of the United States with very, very low crime rates. There are other areas that rate the term “war zone” (fortunately, not many, but any are too many). So it is perfectly valid for one American to say “I don’t feel threatened” and another to say “I need to protect myself”.
And another thing about self defense - there’s a concept of appropriate use of force. If someone threatens you with a knife and you shoot him once (with any of a variety of weapons that can shoot a projectile), and he runs off, and you don’t pursue him… that’s usually considered a legitimate use of force. You weren’t, after all excessive - you used enough to stop the crime and no more.
Now, standing over a twitching body and firing a round or two into it every five minutes or so until all signs of life cease - that’s NOT self-defense. That’s arguably murder, even if it started as self-defense.
You have a right to defend yourself. You do not have an inherent right to kill, maim, or torture. Use enough force, but not excessive force.
Where things get most sticky is where someone actually winds up dead. Well, there ARE circumstances where killing another human being or dying yourself are the only alternatives. In which case my personal choice is to survive. Sure, I might get hauled away in cuffs but you can get out of jail. Death you can’t recover from. If you do find yourself in this situation do what you have to do, cooperate fully when the cops show up even if they’re hauling your ass off to jail, and let the lawyer(s) sort it out later.
If you find someone stealing from you can you stop them? Are you allowed to use force to stop them? How much force?
It sounds like you are saying that you have to open the door for the crook and help him carry out your TV because if he gets hurt in the process of looting you, you’d be the one who would be responsible for his injuries.
Airman, what you are missing is an appreciation of the very different culture and attitudes towards private weapons here.
Although I was born in a rural area where most farmers owned rifles and shotguns for both use as a tool and for recreational shooting I now live in Melbourne, a city with a population of about 3.5 million. The overwhelming majority of people here do not own a gun of any description. Personally I dont know anyone who owns a private handgun and never have, and if a friend were to show me one I would be a little freaked out. It would be like he had revealed a collection of kiddie porn or ku klux klan literature, and I would never see that person in the same light again. If same friend were to say he needed it for self-defence, I would likely wonder if he had become mentally unhinged or had become a criminal, either way I would remember a pressing engagement elsewhere and seek to escape from the nutjob. Talk of the ‘right’ to own guns I would regard as lunatic extremist claptrap.
Now the law you mention is not a law of ‘Australia’ its a law of Victoria which is just one state, just as say Utah is just one American state. Victoria is where I live and from what I have seen and from daily exposure to Victorian media the law that has you so outraged has barely raised a yawn here let alone created a feeling of tyranny or that we are being punished. We like restrictions on weapons and we dont want to end up like you lot. There is no ‘right’ to own a weapon, its a complete nonsense but I’m prepared to compromise, in my home they can take away my non-existent ‘right’ to arm myself with a rock for all I care and in yours give you your non-existent ‘right’ to own a gun and then we’ll both be happy.
Unless Airman recently moved from the US to Australia, his right to own a gun is not non-existent but very much in existence.
And, as two Australian lawyers (myself and Narrad) have both now stated, is one hunnerd percent unadultered garbage.
My post is about the difference in mindset. You see and recognise and constitutionally guarantee a ‘right’ to bear arms. From an Australian perspective thats just silly and we dont see that as a right, you could with as much logic constitutionally guarantee the ‘right’ to drugs or kiddy porn. Some posters here seem to have the attitude that our gun laws are the acts of an oppressive government tyrannising its citizens. The reality is the increased controls were welcomed and supported by the community at large. For most Australians and most Australians never owned a gun anyway its something done for us, not something done to us, which again comes down to a difference in perspective.
This issue doesn’t really affect me, because my penis is so large that I can use it as either a whip or a bludgeon, depending on my state of arousal, thus defending myself from potential muggers.
However, I have to say that banning samurai swords but not machetes seems downright silly, all other issues aside. Whether you can have a bladed weapon depends on stylistic touches?
OK Apos, the duel is on. Me with my machete, you with your penis. Come on, I dare ya!
Princester, are you reading what I said, or responding to the quotation?
On page one Narrad said of the same post from whence the quotation came that it was “bullshit”, which is essentially what I was saying.
As an aside, I couldn’t find previous posts where you’d said anything in this thread!
In the UK, yes you are. “Reasonable” force. Whether the force you used was reasonable or not is decided by the courts, or occasionally the police, who may decline to charge you, or the DPP who may decline to prosecute, depending on extenuating circumstances.
I was agreeing with you, TGU. And that was my first post.