Bassman62 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 No one is, do what you believe is necessary, let a jury work it out afterwards if the CPS think that you went to far.Do you honestly think that someone whose life and the lives of his family are being threatened inside his own home can be expected to weigh up the pros and cons in an instance? It is a totaly different matter when a criminal/housebreaker is pursued, caught and then killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 If you intervene physically and the person stealing your property fights back, how far do you have to let it escalate before you consider your life to be in danger. You shouldn't have a right to pre emptively kill them, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use reasonable force to defend property just as you do your person. I would say while ever the criminal is fighting back he or she is responsible for what happens to them, they should either try to escape or surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 I would say while ever the criminal is fighting back he or she is responsible for what happens to them, they should either try to escape or surrender. fair point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Thee is no requirement to weigh up the level of force used, only to have acted to use ' reasonable' force as later determined by a jury. The jury will of course be free to take into account the confusion and fear that are present in such a situation, but it is still possible to exceed reasonable, eg you take a knife to an octogenarian stealing your garden gnome because they ' fight back'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 you could say by killing them you're hoping to get all the others to either go underground or 'stop being gay'. i know that the aim is the key difference, but the motives seem to be hate in both cases, though they might be caused by different factors. killing Christians coz you hate them would be classed the same as killing them for some other political reason no matter how misguided. they'd both be called terrorism at the moment, i think, regardless of the aim. The definition of the word is that it must have a political aim, hatred is not an aim, thus killing people due to hating them is not terrorism. It may still fall under terrorist legislation, but that doesn't change things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 The definition of the word is that it must have a political aim, hatred is not an aim, thus killing people due to hating them is not terrorism. It may still fall under terrorist legislation, but that doesn't change things. there lies the crux of the matter. the Rwanda genocide. they killed coz they hated. they wanted wipe the other out. with the aim of a Rwanda free of Tutsi. this is genocide, yes. and, if terrorism must have a political aim this had one. same with the Holocaust. so looking back with modern eyes could we say these qualify as acts of terror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 So terrorism can be inspired by hate, but not all hate crimes are terrorism, I didn't say that terrorism can't be a hate crime though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.