“emotional response?” Not at all. A reasoned well thought out response more likely. A plain Yes or No would have sufficed even. That you choose to weave, circumvent and not address the question reveals to the world the sort of creature you really are; a man entertaining revolting ideas of acceptable forms of struggle but not quite with the stomach to face them or defend them. So I guess I’m satisfied that you clarified your position. And if you think that mother let herself and her children be murdered to further a political agenda you are so far removed from reality as to be quite beyond reach.
FinnAgain made a pretty good attempt, but was off on a few points, so I shall elaborate again.
…There is no defence of “defence of property” in homicide.
(And in case you don’t believe me, I give the following example)
That said, in the facts of the case,
- you can clearly see that defence of property,
- if it existed,
- would have been made out on the facts.
(If I was being charged for say, murder, and the facts of the case were that I was injected with a substance that caused me to act without thought, or if I were clinically depressed, you can be sure as hell that my lawyer would raise the defence of insanity, or automatism, as it would be obvious from the facts that I should use those defences)
- It wasn’t.
(Defence of property was not even mentioned)
- And self defence didn’t work, either.
(and even self defence, which WAS raised, didn’t work. And I’ll be damned if protecting your life is less important than protecting your property)
- Ergo, your statement is proven false.
(You know. Wrong.)
Rune, post #459 impressed me. I’ll be paying particular attention to your future posts.
carry on
I only promised you one emotional response.
was meant to invite a “A reasoned well thought out response”? I don’t think so.
Lie and I’ll stop reading you. So trying to pick holes in my emotional response as though it were my argument has got to stop.
…but, dipping into rationality: “let herself be murdered”? T’weren’t she that made the policy.
Tabby-Cat
: First, returning to your earlier observation: It is too much to ask for a list of non-defences. True.
Does this sound reasonable to you? Quote the defences to homicide where you are (the UK?) and we’ll see if defence of property is in there. This sounds a reasonable request to me.
Last: are you really sure you want to stand by “There is no defence of “defence of property” in homicide.” I did suggest you re-read a post by Weirddave (hint: the parts I quoted, excluding the “castle thing”). Did you?
This may be a sound time to revise your position. I have the phrase “vast gaping logical holes” in mind.
Okay, let’s have a little recap of the defences to homicide
Automatism: You were not acting under your own power. For example, you get hit over the head which somehow causes you to have an uncontrollable urge to kill someone. Or if a swarm of bees gets in your face while you are driving and causes you to hit and kill someone.
Insanity: You are labouring under a disease of the mind. “as to not know the nature or quality of the act he was doing, or if he knew it, that he did not know that it was wrong”
Self Defence: You were acting in self defence, and used no more force than necessary to prevent the attack you were under. This is a question of fact, not law.
I assume you mean
Reasonable force is still required. See my case for a situation where excessive force was used, and therefore self defence not allowed. Also, nowhere does it say that it refers to a defence of property - you are only allowed to use deadly force when your life is threatened (see my case).
The castle doctrine only allows you an exemption from the duty to retreat - if you are outside, and you are confronted by deadly force, it is your duty to retreat if possible. You are not allowed, if retreat is possible, to respond with deadly force, even if it is reasonable to do so.
Don’t make me claim lawyer credentials.
Are we still arguing over defending your property and using force? Holy fucking shit Sevasto-zero, give it up. You can’t defend your food, your car, your watch, or your other personal effects with a murder. That’s just the way it is.
Your supposition surrounding the “theft” of their land or their home is less than plausible anyways. It’s more thin than the gruel at the local homeless shelter. Even if I was living in a house in a settlement and it happened to be owned previously by a palestinian, he couldn’t come into the home and kill me for living there. It’s just not legal or defendable unless one of the 3 conditions are met per Tabby’s post above.
You commie-types are hard-headed sons of bitches, I’ll give you that. Really though, let’s snap back to reality.
Sam
Rune, Your post #459 impressed me too. Very much so.
Badshah Khan must have been a special man. Much more likely to sympathize with than a couple of murderers. Thank you for the links. I found another of his quotes:
*“Today’s world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people.” – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985 *
It’s a pity he isn’t alive anymore. He might have been a great example for the Palestines too.
hehehe. The Danes are one of my favorite people too. AND they have a government that listen to its people. I’ve been to Copenhagen and to Legoland and my brother dated a lovely girl called Mette Rasmussen.
Yes, judging by your posts, we’re alike. There was a thread some weeks ago about whom of the Dopers you felt related to. I said no-one, but that has changed. Next time when you’re in A’dam, the drinks - or whatever - are on me.
For our Commonwealth cousins:
Feel free to ignore this.
Perhaps you didn’t follow Sevastapol, either that or you’re ignoring one key word forcible. Explain how this pregnant woman and her children were engaged in a forcible felony such as robbery, burglary… ?
Maybe this pregnant woman, with kids in tow, kicked in the door to some poor defenseless Palestinian couple’s home and they were then compelled to chase her back to Israel and shoot her and her children at point blank range… Do you see any other reason she, herself personally, was engaged in a violent action?
Good conclusion?
Lots of data to suport it?
Again, are you ignoring this phrase or not seeing it? “Any attempt by force…”
I will ask again
- How was this woman and especially her young children engaged in theft via force? Not some machiavellian Israeli plot, but how were those human beings guilty?
-
- You are, still, claiming that any nation has the right to murder, without trial, those who are engaged in taking their land. Does this apply to the United States and Mexico? Why or why not? Extend your logic to its conclusion please. (or your emotion to its ramification if you’d prefer)*
You are again ignoring.
You have the right to DEFEND your property.
You do not have the right to MURDER for your property.
“(1) that the use of force is necessary in the circumstances”
“(2) that the amount of force used is not excessive in the circumstances.”
Again, the question:
How on earth can you say that blowing away a pregnant mother and her children, looking into their eyes, seeing their young faces filled with terror and spattered with gore…
filling kids’ bodies with bullets…
that that is somehow
necessary and not excessive???
This was a pregnant mother and her children, for the love of all that’s sacred!
If you’re playing devil’s advocate you’ve picked an issue that makes you look callous and monstrous. If you’re serious, you attach way too much value to property and a hell of a lot less to human life.
You’re making a good try but it isn’t going to work. The Palestinians could slaughter a pre-school class and eat them and people would trot out the same old tired arguments about how they had been forced into it by the evil zionist conspiracy. Logic and common sense have nothing to do with the matter.
Regards
Testy
sevastopol: Don’t quote out of context.
*: Not “his property will be taken”.
If you’re going to quote it, quote all relevant bits.
Not another commie cherrypicker… Why so disingenuous, Sevastopol? Why can’t you just concede that to commit murder legally, or in self defense, there MUST be the potential for you to be murdered? It’s a very simple equation-
Crazy man using banana to hit me on head. Can I kill him in self defense for attacking me with a banana? No.
Crazy man using baseball bat to beat the fuck out of me. Can I kill him in self defense for attacking me with a blunt object? Probably yes.
So you’re either, blind, dumb, ignorant, or simply determined to win no matter how.
Sam
Hooey. You tried to bluff me and got rumbled, still hurting I guess. Time for you to fold.
GaWd wrote:
Because it isn’t true. It’s right there in b & w. Read it again. A few times. You’ll get it. Eventually.
For some reason I’ve taken a shine to you. Maybe it’s the “hard-headed” compliment. If you really cannot see it I’ll explain. Don’t bother me if you just want to be difficult.
Tell me, do you have any legal experience? At all? You know, like a legal degree, and numerous law textbooks lying around, like I do? No?
In plain English. Read the FUCKING QUOTE.
I’m not being difficult. This is the law. THe potential for death, or the fear that a specific person will kill you is required to claim self defense. Period.
I will repeat Tabby’s question to you:
IANAL, but I work in the industry and know a touch about it all.
Sam
May an owner of property use deadly force to defend their property?
As clear as it gets.
Tabby_Cat…
B… bu… but but but!!!
Then how can we gun down women and children and claim that it is simply some good ol’ summary executions?
And how can we then come back to this thread and be smarmy, without the ability to read, and then call everybody else names and be a general brat?
I mean, man… are we honestly going to be forced to admit that anybody who seeks out a pregnant mother and her kids in order to get some killin’ done… are we honestly going to be forced to admit that murdering babies is bad?
Say it aint so!
Maybe if we purposefully mis-read a few more legal tracts it’ll be ok to murder babies?
Come on man, I’ve really got my heart set on this whole ‘it’s cool to murder babies” thing.
Maybe Sevastapol will finish this up for me, I’m sure he can back up his claim that the law says in black and white that you can use deadly force to protect your toaster. Toasters are important.
I’m not prepared to give Tabby-Cat, the benefit of any further doubt. His/Her errors are too many for an honest person and too unrepentant. There is some other interest motivating him/her.
Being fair, I’ll dispose of the latest objections before concluding discussion with Tabby-Cat.
TC wrote
I know what it says. What I don’t see is how it constitutes relevant context that I omitted in discussing:.
which is about forcible felonies.
Verbal threats. Forcible felonies. Spot the difference.
TC wrote
Firstly, this isn’t from any sort of authority.
“Generally Speaking”. Means what it says. It allows that there are uncommon exceptions. There’s no contradiction with my position.
GaWD wrote
When you state the law you state the authority for it. All I can do to convice GaWD his/her opinion of the law is wrong, is to present the law in b&w right in front and offer to explain it.
Here it is again.
Take it or leave it.
Fair enough, you don’t like my cite. Let’s try another one
I don’t know how to make it clearer short of telling you to go out and buy a textbook. If you can find a single case where it was found reasonable to use deadly force in defence of property (which none of my lecturers ever told me about, and do not exist in any of the cases in my casebook), feel free.
Hell, I’ll start a GQ for you. You don’t wanna believe me - fine, maybe you’ll believe the other established lawyers, such as Bricker. Yeah, I suppose it’s reasonable - you only know my screen name, and my post count is pretty low.