So what do you do when your home is burgled? - Advice from Briton
 

I read this and saw it of another example of the basic differences in philosophy between what we call the left and the right.

Here, the advice is to not defend yourself and to rely on the government to defend you.

This is anathema to me and many to the right of center, as are many similar ideas the left proposes for the 'betterment society'.

My second thought was, "Who is John Galt?"

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004

---------------------------------------------
So what do you do when your home is burgled?

DR IAN STEPHEN


THE murder of John Monckton and the attack on his wife, Homeyra, during an apparent burglary in their London home has once again highlighted the true dangers and indeed the legal and moral dilemma members of the public face when they are confronted with intruders on their own property.

From a police perspective, the advice to potential victims of burglaries is unequivocal and clear-cut and you should never "have a go", so to speak, but for the victims of crime this is a very difficult thing to put into practice, especially when your natural instincts are to defend yourself, your family and your own property - the very pillars of your life that are being violated and potentially destroyed by criminals.

As a law-abiding individual confronted by an intruder in your home you face a catch-22. If you attack the burglar, or react in an "over the top" manner, as was recently illustrated in the case of Tony Martin who shot intruders in his Norfolk farmhouse, you will inevitably end up on the receiving end of a prison sentence that will far outstrip that imposed on the intruder in your own home. This situation has resulted in a lack of belief in the law among the public or rather a belief that the law isn’t exactly on your side when your home is broken into.

To this end it is perhaps important not to dwell on the situation involving Mr Martin because, regardless of the appeal procedure he successfully went through to secure his freedom, in many ways the law still points to his particular attack on the intruders who entered his home as a pre-meditated assault. He had previously been the victim of a number of burglaries within his home and as a result of this he was effectively prepared for further intrusion and reacted as such when his farmhouse was broken into again.

But what the Martin case does reflect is the general fear felt by the public over rising crime rates and the extent to which they will go to protect themselves. As the case involving Mr and Mrs Monckton shows those most at risk from aggravated burglary are the wealthy, individuals identified by criminals as prosperous professionals. However, at the other end of the scale, people living in inner cities and on council estates face a similar level of risk.

When individuals are confronted by intruders there are some actions they should follow. Direct contact should be avoided whenever possible. If unavoidable, the victim should adopt a state of active passivity. In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn’t possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder’s awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means. People can cooperate but initiate nothing. By doing nothing there is no chance of inadvertently initiating violence by saying something such as "Please don’t hurt me".

In a situation involving housebreaking it is also important to remember that many common burglars are adolescents, most likely starting out on the first rung of the criminal ladder, and they are therefore prone to lashing out if confronted and in the worst case scenarios killing out of panic and fear.

Sometimes the perpetrator of a burglary is even more terrified than the victim and in many cases when things go wrong it is the perpetrator of the crime who panics. Although they sometimes go equipped with weapons, in most cases they probably don’t intend to use them but in the heat of the moment, and the fear of either getting caught or attacked themselves, they use them. They don’t expect the person they are trying to hold up to retaliate or react. Mostly the knife is there simply for intimidation rather than intent to use it and they finish up killing somebody by accident rather than design.

This, of course, does not excuse their actions, but it is certainly worth taking on-board when you consider confronting an intruder. While saying this, in my own experience counselling victims of crime in recent years, there has also recently been a marked increase in the use or the threatened use of dangerous weapons in burglaries and common assaults. This, in itself, is a deeply worrying trend and, although not entirely excusing over-retaliation from homeowners, creates an understandable degree of sympathy for members of the public who lash out at intruders in their home. In truth it is an incredibly difficult situation to assess.

What is perhaps most important is dealing with the victims of the crime and helping them through the aftermath. As someone with wide experience of counselling the victims of violent robberies in their homes it is essential to remember the post-traumatic stress associated with such incidents.

The truth is aggravated burglary causes enormous stress as the victim’s home has been violated. This situation is magnified when the victims and their family have been threatened or assaulted and can lead to a whole range of post-traumatic stress disorders. Like the victims of rape and violent assault, members of the public who experience criminal intrusion in their home experience episodes and often show all the classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress like panic attacks, sleep disorders, flashbacks and social withdrawal.

Like other serious crimes the aftermath of a burglary can be the start of a process that continues to destroy the victim’s self-esteem and even relationships with their loved ones and more often than not reinforces their feelings of guilt and self-blame over the situation. The damage to the victim from the original crime can also be magnified by the court experience and, more likely in today’s society, the lack of support from local authorities and the police.

The trauma can be dealt with in a number of ways with professional help, counselling to develop effective coping strategies and taking time off from stressful professional activities. People who fail to seek help often develop further psychological problems. Men especially are not good at accepting support, but some simple counselling immediately after an attack can substantially reduce the risk of long-term psychological problems.

• Dr Ian Stephen is an Honorary Lecturer (Forensic Psychology) at Glasgow Caledonian University and has worked in a number of prisons with long-term prisoners and young offenders. He was a consultant to forensic psychology television series Cracker.

So... Despite what the experts say (and like it or not, the police ARE the experts when it comes to dealing with crime--a police officer will deal with 100 times more crime this month than you'll deal with in your lifetime), you're saying they're wrong?

Look, what's more valuable, your home or your life? If somebody wants my physical posessions and had a weapon capable of depriving me of my life, I'm not going to try anything heroic to keep what I own.

Heroic, macho (right-wing) chest-thumping gets people killed. Does that mean I'm willing to roll over and be a victim? Absolutely not. But I'd rather deal with crime on a sociological level. Once somebody's actually burgling your actual home, it's a little too late to deal with it well in my book.

interesting read.

nonetheless, where i come from, if you're breaking into my house, you are asking for whatever ends up happening to you as a direct result. period.

its niether macho nor conservative...its just how it is.

But don't you see? That's EXACTLY what they want you to do. This follows on the heals of advice from the same "experts" that tell women not to fight back when they are being raped.

So yes, I see that as exactly what is being endorsed.

Is my property more important than my life?

No.

But that doesn't mean that a thief will get a pass in my house.

If you want to call it "chest thumping", that's your privilege. I call it refusing to be a victim.

Hehhehe...

Yeah. Right. Rely on 911 and the police. BuWaHhahahaaaaa! That's great!

Oh, wait. They're serious? IMHO, bad advice unless you want to be owned.

i kinda see where the hippy is coming from...but if you come into my house without my permission, where my wife and kids sleep...you're just gonna end up regretting it. one way or another.

The problem with with not doing anything and waiting for the police is you don't know what the intruder's intentions are. Burglers who break into occupied houses must be a little crazy anyway. If you can make a little noise and scare them off, fine. But otherwise it's time to chamber a round in the shotgun and get ready. If you are home when they break in then you are probably going to be discovered by them and what if they don't want a witness?

I guess each instance is unique from one to the next, but if I were to confront someone in my home at 3 a.m my first thought wouldn't be of passivisity, but rather to protect myself the best I could even if it meant violence. But, if 2 or 3 people are there then better to evacuate and call 911 than fight.

I've got a baseball bat by my bed (sorry no guns allowed in Canada) and a lead pipe under my drivers seat and if for an instance I feel my life is endangered, I certainly wouldn't hesitate to use them regardless if the perp is 16 or 60, male or female.

You know if everyone fought back, odds are not many homes would be robbed.

This is why areas without gun control have lower crime rates then like communities with gun control. If you break into my house, my first thoughts are on my families safety. If there is no way to get them out easily, whoever broke in is going to die.

wtf?

Most people would say I lean to the left, but I have no problems with guns or them being used on people who break into your home. Shoot the fucker.

I hate articles like that. If you come into my house without my invitation I will do whatever I can to incapacitate you or kill you if I feel it is necessary. I don't know what you are doing there, I don't know what you want, so I am going to assume the worst and protect myself. Likewise if you try and rape me I feel perfectly justified in defending myself. In fact, if you happen to lose your ability to have an erection, ever again, I think the world is better off. If more people fought back when they were being victimized there would be less violent crime.

What a sad, sad country to live in. There's just something wrong when you have to question whether you'll go to jail if you defend your life. Any society where criminals have more rights than victims is just plain wrong. I wish I could personally thank my ancestors for leaving such a place.

Does anyone else gather that idea's like those expressed in the article, along with that of "gun control" go to explain with Briton's violent crime rates have tripled over the last few years?

Not me, but then I remember that gun *control* wasn't recently introduced. I also remember that there are considerable direct economic reasons for the tripling of the crime rate in England - underfunding and mismanagement of the Police being A1 on that list.

I keep a bat and a chain by my bed just in case someone breaks into my apartment :)

Reference?

Violent crime has increased by 11% according to the BCS.


Mr Mephisto

I don't own a gun, but I've been a victim of burglary once and attempted burglary once.

I was visiting friends over the weekend many years ago. I arrived home to find my front door open and the inside of my house trashed. Everything of value was gone - electronics, and other small things. The police came out and told me that more than likely, they'd never catch the criminal and even more likely, whoever did it would return within the month because I'd have new stuff. I'm not huge on gun ownership but am not a gun control freak either. Instead, I slept with a baseball bat under my bed for a while.

Fast forward 12 years. I'm living in a different city. I'm awake one night reading in bed when I hear a strange sound coming from downstairs. It sounded like my cat trying to scratch the screen on our window. My wife was sound asleep and I noticed that our cat was laying on the floor by our bed. I grabbed my baseball bat and went to the top of the stairs and listened. There was a slight hope that if someone was breaking in, I'd catch them at it. I was not wanting to be a victim again and would have loved a bit of vengeance. My heart was pounding in my chest as I stood and listened for a moment. When I was certain it was the sound of someone trying to come into my home, I yelled down the stairs, "If you're there when I get down there, the medics will be washing your blood off the walls." I then leapt down the stairs to see this guy push himself out our window and take off running down the alleyway. I had an incredible rush going on and was about to take off after him when I realized I was in nothing but my underwear.

I called the cops to report it. The conversation went a bit like this:

Me: I just caught someone trying to break into my home.
Them: Are they in the house?
Me: No, I scared them off.
Them: Was anything taken or was anyone hurt?
Me: No, I think I scared them before they actually got in.
Them: Did you get a look at the person?
Me: Not really, he looked like he was about 20 years old, white guy wearing a black or blue sweatshirt.
Them: We could send someone out but if it's not that serious, we're a little busy right now.
Me: What should I do, then?
Them: We can give you a number to call to report it and an investigator can come out tomorrow to look into it.
Me: But aren't I reporting it now?
Them: This is an emergency number, we don't take reports like that.
Me: What's the number?
Them: yada yada yada. We'll have a patrol drive around the area and see if they notice anything. Other than that there isn't a whole lot we can do.
Me: [dumbfounded silence]

The number they gave me was a recorded message where you leave the details of the incident. I was never called back and no one ever came to my home. I told my neighbor about it and he said the same thing happened to him the year before with the same response from the police. Unlike me, he bought a gun.

My take is this: apparently, in many cases, you're on your own to protect your own home. Do it as you see fit.

We have a low crime rate where I live . I firmly believe that is because most of the population up here is armed. Most folks have deer hunters in their families so there is a minimum of a 12 gauge shotgun in the house.

If you choose to rob my house, the last sound you ever hear may be the action closing on the 12 gauge. Is that worth the risk?

Any fool who breaks into my house, puts my family at risk and attempts to take my stuff better be prepared to pay for it with his face.

No right-wing chest thumping here, it's just how it would go down. Political alignment bears no relevance to someone faced with an intruder in their own home.

People have every right to defend their property without fearing any legal repercussions. Of course, if someone went too far (say, shot an intruder to death while he was making his bid for freedom with their toaster tucked under his arm), then their actions should be judged on the weight of the crime and with the circumstances considered, as with anything else. Perhaps this seems a tad idealistic given the spin that tends to be woven into any situation brought under the public eye, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible and can't happen.

I'm so glad I don't live in a socialist shithole like England. If someone breaks into my house, chances are they'll be leaving in a police cruiser or hearse.

You sir are exactly right. Right here in the good ole' USA there are numerous court cases backing this up. The police are not legally bound to protect you, only to catch the perps and bring them to justice after the crime has been committed. Everyone is responsible for their own personal safety.

What moral dillema?
There's enough crazy people in this world that if there is an unknown person invading my home at night, I'm not going to jeapordize my family's safety by taking the chance that "active passivity" is going to cut it.

I have a gun for intruders, and I wouldn't hesitate to see if they have a weapon... once I see them clearly enough to make sure it isn't a relative, pow... I also have a security system to insure I never have to actually shoot one...

No moral dilemma for me. If you break into my house while I'm here you will leave in a body bag.

Police are experts when it comes to dealing with crime on the street. There is no cop alive that is more expert than I when it somes to protecting what is mine, inside my home, and that includes my possessions as well as the lives of the ones I love.

You are right, my life (or the lives of family) is far more important. But, what is more important - my possessions or a criminals life? If he is standing in my living room, ready to take my possessions? The smallest thing I own becomes far more valuable than his miserable life.

Right again, but the sociological level deserves a chance only while crime remains on the street, out there where the cops are the experts. If a person has problems get help and deal with it, whether they do it voluntarily or it must be done by force. Once a criminal crosses my threshold uninvited, it becomes my choice on how to deal with crime.

yep, we all know how low the crime and murder rates in the US are.... :rolleyes:

and since i know it i will make sure that you have no time to fight me, i will shoot first...

that is IMO the problem with guns, the "start level" of violence is higher, it is easier to start a fighting. Like the article said the burglar will also be in panic and if he thinks you are armed he will probably panicly start shooting first.

The vast majority of crimes are commited by criminals, drug dealers, etc, against each other.... :rolleyes:

Very few burgalers carry a weapon beyond what they need to break in and that is likely laying in the bushes below the window or beside the door. Besides, in my home, who is going to have the upper hand - myself or the surprised thief?

And what is the suggestion here from the passivists voice?

If I hear a strange noise in my kitchen, late at night when we are all in bed, what would you suggest I do? Hide trembling in the closet and hope they don't find the room my child is in? Ask them to leave so they can go over to my neighbors and take their shit? Hold them for the cops so they can go through the court system, burning up tax dollars and continue to be a cost to society?

To hell with that. Drop the bastard before he can reach the door or window he entered.

The start level of violence occurs when someone breaks into your house. If the sound of a round chambering in a shotgun doesn't scare them off and they choose to stay and fight, then they will be at a huge disadvantage since they won't know the layout as well as you. If they are panicked because they thought no one was home then they better say something and give up or run quickly.

If you did nothing, how can you take the chance that the intruder won't want to eliminate you as a witness? How do you even know they are just a burgler? I don't think anyone wants to shoot and kill one of the 12 year old neighbor kids but they better identify themselves pretty quickly. If they don't run or identify themselves then you have to assume the worse.

In response to the original post, i have to say that the views expressed in your source are slightly askewed.

Firstly, Britains most senior police officer, and now the Prime Minister have clearly said that the homeowner should have the rights to defend themselves and only be prosecuted if they used 'gratuitous (sp) force' on a burglar entering their home.

Over the past two weeks, there has been a huge uproar over this subject in parliment and throughout the country, which caused our PM to go completly 180 in his stance on home protection, and there is now a bill being put through to allow the homeowner to defend themself with force.

Visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/default.stm for proper news about Britain.


In my opinion, anyone who enters my house and intends to steal my stuff and put my family in even the remotest danger gets a barbell upside the head.

Here's some.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../10/ngun10.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...por_right.html

Remember that even though it says it's trebled, the UK is nowhere near the amount of gun related crime in the US. We have 1/4th the population, yet USA has a much higher figure per capita.


I personally think the original article in the first post was more of what the average citizen should do when faced with an intruder. Kind of like advice for what one should do when faced with a potentially dangerous dog.
I can understand it. For our American friends who own firearms and are trained and ready to use them in their homes: YOU migh have the restraint and the preparation to protect yourselves, but what about the burglar? You might have ammunition in a home defense weapon that will not penetrate walls, but do they? And if your first shot misses, what happens if they decide to fire wildly?

However, should the attitude as suggested in the artcile become widespread and encouraged by the authorities, it will give burglars more confidence.

British laws should be changing soon, giving homeowners more right to defend themselves and this article would also seem to be asking to tone down the amount of cheering for homeowners to use lethal force in their own homes.

And I do love that old story of the guy in the UK who called 999 to report some thieves who were breaking into his shed, again. The operator called to say that there were no available units to respond to a break in.

He called back 3 minutes later to say there was no rush, he'd shot them.

Within 10 minutes, ambulances and armed response police were all over his house and caught the theives red-handed.
They questioned the homeowner and asked:"What's the meaning of this? You told us that you'd shot them!"
He just replied: "And you told me that there was no-one available to respond."
;)

YOu are indeed wiley. I love this story. And it is a great way to illustrate a point: you need to set the stage for what you feel you need.

If I call and say someone is trying to get in my window, it is very different from calling and saying someone is in my house right now with a gun.

Most of the crimes handled by police are crimes in the past tense. You're usually pretty occupied when the crime is actually happening, so that leaves out the present and you won't get any response if you think the crime is going to happen.

If you walk through my door uninvited, especially at night, be prepared for hell if I'm inside. And if yo show up when I'm not home and make it in, be prepared for the same thing when I show up. It's that simple. I call it personal responsibility.

I am originally from the UK, but thank god I left. My mother was telling me a story a little while ago, she still lives there. basically what happened was that a gang of scum broke in to a rich guys house, forced him to open his safe, took all the jewellery, valubles etc... but that wasnt enough. they then tied the guy to the kitchen table, so he was looking in to the front room, and the gang repeatedly raped his wife for hours on end. while he was forced to watch.

anbody can say anything they want, but, as many people have already expressed here, if i find somebody in my house when they shouldnt be there they are going to receive my full fury. they might only be after the dvd player, but unfortunately for them, my wife is under the same roof and i will assume they are meaning to harm her. its the only rational conclusion in my mind, the price for not reacting with extreme and deadly force could be too high to pay.

Correct me if I've misunderstood you here, but I think you'll find that such horrific events aren't exclusive to Britain.

I'm sorry? At what point did this become an excerise in nation bashing? It's not appreciated and adds nothing to your point. An intruder in one's home is a fairly simple concept, so whichever "ism" you assign to a particular country's political orientation is completely irrelevant. When defending your home you do so as an individual, a human being protecting your possessions and your loved ones, it doesn't matter on which side of the political spectrum you sit. Similar debates are bound to be going on in governments the world over, even in those countries that aren't "socialist shitholes", and to claim otherwise would be naive.

I simply call it as I see it. The fact that a man went to jail for protecting himself and his loved ones from people that broke into his house is disgusting to me.

No but here in America he's allowed to give them the shotgun.

I will NEVER let our government (FOR the people) tell me that I cant defend myself or my family. I will NEVER let anyperson convince me that laying passive is better than taking an active defense. If a person is breaking into my house I dont know if it's to steal my tv, rape my wife (in the future), or try to whipe us all out because he's a psychopath. It's not my job to figure that out, and quite frankly I wouldnt care then or after the fact. My job is to protect myself and those around me, if he doesnt like it he can stay the fuck out of my house.

I see both sides. No your life isn't worth any item that might be stolen but for a lot of people it might be worth it for the principles of having law and order in a society.

I have a basic theory on home defense. Both armed and unarmed intruders are dealt with using a shotgun prepared specifically for the purpose of home defense. In the split second that an intruder is stunned by the beam of a tactical flashlight, a threat assessment can be made. If the intruder is not an immediate threat, he will be shot once. If the intruder is an immediate threat, all it takes is one quick pump to eject the beanbag and chamber a 00 buckshot shell.


Imagine, for a moment, that you are a robber standing on the sidewalk between two homes. On your right is a car in the driveway with a bumper sticker reading "Proud Member of the NRA." On your left is a car with the sticker reading "Guns Kill." Which house would you choose to rob? British law turns every house into the one on the left.

Let them get away, that way you can claim more than what you really lost on your insurance.

In this day of small expensive electronics, it will pay off.

Also, you have every right to kill an intruder, regardless of what you read or what a judge elsewhere decided. The fact is, in the dark, late at night, you don't have time to stop and chit-chat about whether or not the burglar has a weapon.

Trust me, anyone who kills an intruder won't get a prison sentence. Just because it happened to one person (and I'm sure a few more throughout history), doesn't mean it'll happen to everyone. It's highly UNLIKELY you will be sent to prison for doing this.

Here in Australia, specifically the state of New South Wales, thanks to the Shooters Party, shooters have a representative in parliament who has > negotiated with Premier and Attorney-General to absorb Home Invasion and Workplace Bills into a wider amendment to the Crimes Act (Crimes Amendment (Self Defence) Act) which extends the absolute right of self-defence to citizens anywhere, not just in home or workplace. It guarantees a citizen immunity from civil and criminal liability, if they defend themselves against attack; and also provides that if they are charged after fending off an attack, the onus of proof is reversed and the prosecution must prove that they did not believe, in their own minds, that they had to take whatever action they did to defend themselves. This is now law." Amen.

While this story is amusing, I'm afraid it paints an untrue picture of those in law-enforcement. It's not as though they were all at doughnut shop annoyed that someone called in report their shed was being broken into. It's that the police are usually extremely limited in their resources and are forced to prioritize calls.

For example, let's say every working police officer was already on a call - dealing with medicals, assault reports, domestic disputes, vehicle accidents, runaways, burglaries, business alarms, DUIs and the list could go on. Now you call up and say you shot somebody, even though you didn't. You just ripped police services away from your fellow citizens - some who were in worse situations than you - how does that make you feel?

Not to threadjack, I know this isn't about the police specifically. I'm also not saying the police are perfect. But let's not blame the police for doing the best they can with limited resources.

First the crime rates in the US tend to be LOWER than European ones right now.

Secondly, as a whilte male I have a lower chance of being murdred in the US than a white male in Europe.

Third most murders in the US are gang-gang related.

Fourth, I'm sure you don't know this but the US has areas of almost complete gun control and areas where anyone can carry a concealed weapons. Guess which areas in the US have the most murders and highest crime?

Because of a bumper sticker? :confused:

Just because, thankfully, the vast majority of our populance don't have guns doesn't mean that we can't seriously mame an intruder.

I still don't get why just about everyone responding to this thread seems to think that because our government has said to give over our valubles or lock ourselves away that every single person will do that. Of course there will be people who will do that, and the same everywhere else in the world. I know people here who would a gun (legal or otherwise) to defend their homes and family.
Like i said before, our government has started procedures to make it perfectly legal for a homeowner to defend themselves with force, even if it does mean killing the intruder.


Also worth mentioning is that using the Tony Martin case (where a he shot a 16 year old intruder dead) is a highly irregular case, and should not be used as context on British law, customs or judicial practices because of the fact it is so rare, and overly played in the media.

I would like to set the record straight for those who don't believe that the private ownership of firearms serves as a deterrent to violent crime. It has already been posted on this thread that violent crime in the UK, where citizens have been stripped by their government of the right to protect their lives, is on the rise. I would like to share some recent data that I found with a quick google search on the effect concealed carry of firearms by private citizens has on violent crime.

" 31 States now have laws allowing individuals to carry concealed handguns. In the most careful scientific study of such laws yet done, which will be published in the Journal of Law and Economics in January, John Lott finds that concealed-carry laws deter violent crimes and produce no increase in accidental deaths. In an advance look at his findings, he argued at this forum that if more states had such laws, thousands of murders could be prevented."
From: http://www.cato.org/realaudio/audiopages/gunlaws.html

If you don't believe what I just posted, please go and have a look for yourself. The man who wrote this is a professor of law at the University of Chicago. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he's not a right winger. Doesn't it make sense? If you were a criminal, wouldn't you be more likely to burglarize, rob, mug, and rape in areas where you know people don't have guns? The higher the prevalence of concealed carry and gun ownership, the lower the crime rate will be for a simple reason...Criminals don't want to get shot to death any more than you and I do.

When I am in America, I carry my .45 glock or my .357 taurus almost everywhere I go. It's not because I think I'm tough or because I want to shoot someone, it's because I love my life and refuse to be a victim. It's like the old saying goes, "I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it." I feel like I am in control of my own life and destiny and I'm not going to be a victim. It's called having and internal locus of control.

I feel very strongly about this and even honest left wingers are beginning to admit that private gun ownership serves as a deterrent to crime.

Final though: Who is Jon Gault?

I carry my .45 glock or my .357 taurus almost everywhere I go

Do you really need that much stopping power to keep yourself from being a victim?

FL8ME, i agree. much better to shoot somebody with a soft cuddly .22, rather than a big nasty .45....

<b>nowthen</b>

Clearly, you missed the point of my post. Shooting someone with a .22 certainly won't blow the organs out of your assailants body like a .45 would, however a gun that large for personal protection during day to day activities just seems foolish to me. A lighter, more inexpensive weapon with less recoil will get the point across just as well to an attacker. However if you feel confident in your ability to produce a concealed, high powered handgun and fire accurately, possibly numerous times, under duress well more power to you.

What I meant is that the house on the left is broadcasting the fact that they are unarmed. Since British law does not allow people to defend their homes, any home can be entered without the fear of being shot.

Yes. The proper weapon for defense is that which provides the highest chance of incapacitating the attacker in the fastest way possible. a .45 hollow point has a 98% chance (off the top of my head, might be a bit off,) of causing sufficient neural shock to incapacitate an attacker with one shot. If I am defending myself against an armed assailant, I want the most stopping power possible.

edit: if you want more info, check the .45 acp and .40 vs. .45 threads in weaponry. There's a lot of useful information in there.

The philosophy of any liberal society is the "right to life, liberty, and property" as locke dictated in his 2nd treatise. I think that Britain is going a bit overkill in prosecuting people who defend themselves, but I think that the crazy right wing vision that you need to have a weapon in order to protect yourself is equally, if not more dangerous for society. If you pay taxes, and chose to take advantages of things in your society (social security, medicare, etc. etc.) then you have given up your natural rights, with the trust that your society will be responsable for them. Thus, if you decide to be a citizen of the Great Britain, you no longer have the right to defend your own property, because it's the states responsability to defend your property, not your own anymore.

If there was no government, then yes, as Locke says, you have a right to defend your property with the means bestowed on you (murder anyone who threatens you or your property), but since there is a government in place, its responsability is to protect you and your property. This keeps petty thieves from being killed, and gives people fair trials in a court system unbiased. If the police don't protect you and your property, then you have a right to rebel against your country. That's the bottom line, right there. You shouldn't hole yourself up with weapons and just say that it's "not your problem", because then it just prolongs everyone's misery.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any knowledge of firearms or ballistics? The .45 ACP and .357 magnum are two of the most effective, time tested stopping rounds out there. If I fire on an assailant, I'm not trying to get a point across, I'm trying to immediately incapacitate that person. With that in mind, I'm going to carry the most lethal calibers possible. I'm a large man and experienced shooter. After doing extensive ballistics research and speaking with many others, I like .45 acp, .357 mag, and 10mm for self defense.

You mentioned "lighter, more inexpensive weapons." Manufacturers produce firearms chambered in both of these calibers that are specifically designed for concealed carry. As far as price is concerned, I don't see your point. Caliber doesn't dictate price. Price depends on manufacturer and model.

Listen, I don't mind you disagreeing with me, that's fine. I don't appreciate the tone or the quality of the two posts you put on this thread though. Please put more thought into how you post disagreements with others. Mutual respect is what makes this board special and it is how we keep things civil around here.

-Dostoevsky

Police can't be everywhere at all times. Some crime is going to occur regardless of what measures the state takes to prevent it. Do you honestly have the mindset to just sit back and be a victim if someone decides to commit a crime against you?

The second part of your post suggested that if the state isn't able to protect its citizenry from violent crime, that you should overthrow it. It seems unrealistic to expect the same people who wouldn't protect themselves against criminals would suddenly find the courage rise up against their government.

It seems to me that the whole arguement on this thread boils down to whether people have internal or external loci of control. People with internal loci of control don't expect the government to provide everything for us, that includes protection. People with external loci of control are more likely to have that victim mentality. They expect the government to protect them and feel like they don't have any control over what happens to them.

Anyone who takes an interest in this thread should read Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' if you have time. It is full of insight on this topic.

British law does allow people to defend their homes, it just doesn't do it that well at this moment in time. Government advice has been to lock yourself away and call the police, but it's not the law.

Why do you think that shooting people is the only recourse of action when your home is entered illegially? Does every intruder in America stop and think that the household they're about to burgal has a gun, and does that even stop them half the time anyway? Do those houses with guns advertise that factor?

How else would I defend myself if I were attacked? I have no idea what they are doing there or what their intentions are, why shouldn't I assume the worst and protect myself and who ever else is in my class? The possibility that a home owner is armed does keep burgalers out of houses. Would you burgal a house where there was the remotest possibility that you'd get shot? Or would you prefer someplace safer?

If guns keep people from breaking into other peoples houses, why do we still get people shooting people breaking into their houses?
People will still break into your house, and probably won't give a damn half the time if you have a gun because they intend to be in and out before you get a chance to confront them, or when your not present.

I'm not saying you shouldn't protect yourself, far from it, but people were killing and maming other people long before guns were invented. A golf club will do a fair amount of damage to someone, as will a large stick or kitchen knife. It's the mentallity that one needs a gun to properly defend themself that really gets at me.

For those of you who don't know, home defense does not equate to self-defense. The tenets for self-defense in the United States are such that someone has used and/or attempted the use of lethal force, and you have no ability to flee. Shooting a burglar is aggravated assault, attempted murder or murder unless the burglar has produced a firearm and pointed/discharged it at you, or has wielded a knife within roughly 12 feet of you and you had no ability to evade or flee. Those are the stuatory strictures on self-defense put down by the courts and legislators.

Therefore, if a burglar enters your home, steals something, and you offer the use of force outside of reasonably restraining him, especially with the use of a weapon, you should and probably will be convicted of assault, aggravated assault, or murder. Until he's convicted of the crime, his rights are the same as yours under the eyes of the law.

here,here.

I could not have said it better myself Whocarz.

And it's a charge that I will except and gladly go to jail for. I will draw a line in the sand. and defend my family with every means at my deposal.

My thoughts exactly. My lack of a gun doesn't soften the business end of my cricket bat. Besides, I don't see how guns bear any relevance to burglaries in Britain because of our laws about them. Even if someone did break into a home and pulled a gun when confronted, what's the owner going to do? Politely ask the intruder to wait a second while they run to the cupboard to fetch their shotgun? Or are they supposed to shoot first and ask questions later, and in so doing kill what could potentially be a kid trying to make off with 20 quid? So long as guns aren't part of the equation, which I can't ever see them being here, I think we're in a better position to get some effective legislation through Parliament.

Burglary in the US
 

In the US, the laws seem to favor the homeowner. Once someone breaks into your home, it is generally accepted you can do whatever you need to remove the person, or more precisely, the threat to your person that they present.

I think it's safe to say home defense measures of an Indiana Jones nature,(remember Indy getting to the Grail in "Last Crusade"?) where one's house is rigged to maim and disfigure an intruder is grounds for some legal action, if not being institutionalized.

The issue is - life, liberty, and property. I fail to see how any social experiment is going to save a person's right to any of these things. Bloody hell, they have martial arts in the UK, don't they? What are they for, carpentry and showmanship?

Despite all the attention things like the Patriot Act get in the USA, America is still the most free of any developed nation I can think of. Maybe the people in the UK should take it up with their MP's to change the legal culture - defending one's own hearth and home isn't too radical, is it?

Nothing I have to say hasn't been already said but plenty of you could benefit from the information contained within the pdf you can find here.

Galt.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" for the answer to this question.

Not in Colorado and Texas (the two I know of).

If you break into a house, armed or not, you're fair game for the coroner.

Ilegally enter my home and you will be invited one time to leave. Should you elect to not do so then I hope you have prepared yourself for the consequences of your action. :)

Hey Lebell...Perhaps a better question is "Who is John Elway"? Or "Who is John Kerry?" Nice reference to Ayn Rand....:D

God, I love this state

What about those people who don't have the strength or coordination to swing a cricket bat, such as the disabled or the elderly? Are they supposed to be at the mercy of a criminal simply because they are weak or uncoordinated?

Firearms are awesome because they level the playing field for everybody involved. Scrawny old women can disable young, strong criminals.

Yep beat me to it. If you are in someone's house in Texas and they shoot you...it's justified. You hear these stories often enough and as far as I know nobody has been tried and convicted of manslaughter or even assault for defending their property.

Now...as far as "Just use a bat or a knife..." Yeah...if the thought of you being able to fend off an attacker with a bat makes you sleep better at night go right ahead but just one thing to consider. You have to get awfully close to an invader to take them out with a blunt melee weapon. And the closer you get the more dangerous the situation becomes and the more likely YOU won't be the one ready for the confrontation. Especially if there happens to be more than one guy. With a gun even if you miss them the likely hood of a crook hanging around to get into a gun battle with you or trying to wrest your gun away from you is minimal to nill.

Think about it seriously. If you are able to get the drop on the intruder...you can double tap him real quick and confrontation is over before they know you are there. If you AREN'T able to get the drop on them and they see or hear you coming you still have the ability to engage them from say 4-5 meters away and still be relatively safe. If you have a bat or a knife...you've got to sneak up on them...ok and only the most idiotic thief would not notice you creeping up on them so close that you can hit them with a bat with any significant force now if you aren't able to surprise them...well at that moment it becomes does the thief think they can take you? And frankly one on one you with a bat versus him with whatever he might have or might be able to pick up to defend himself is a toss up on who is going to win. You MIGHT win...you might not and you might have just succeeded in pissing off a nutjob who now likely has YOUR weapon and will likely have no problem using against you.

Dostoevsky

If you're still checking this board out, sorry if I came of like an ass. My second post wasn't aimed at you, but the person who chose to make a smarmy comment without actually offering any insight or help. I understand the need to keep things civil as well. Now I am off to a discussion where maybe (allbeit unlikely) I can knowledgeably contribute.

Home defense laws
 

Does anyone have a site or group of sites listing laws for home defense, as we've been discussing?

I'm in VA, and I don't want to go to the library to look this up in the books.

Thanks.

Ok, Tonay Martin's case has been brought up and I think some of you need to become acquainted with the case.

He had been burgled before by the same people.
He prepared himself and had a loaded shotgun ready. His intent was to kill.
The victim who died was shot in the back. This does not constitute self defense in the mind of a jury.

A criminal running away in England is a matter for the police. An intruder facing you whilst standing in the dorrway to your house is a matter for the shotgun.

For all of you who carry, I agree that you feel confident in the use of your firearm and your rights to use it. The problem arises when people DON'T know when they may use it and it becomes a needless killing.
A druggie stealing your car radio doesn't need to die for that. The punishment doesn't justify the crime. If he were to approach you with a knife when you disturbed him, well, that's a different issue.

Do the kids that are toilet papering your house constitute a threat to your family?

My personal belief is that guns are unecessary, but I can accept and (at least make a decent attempt to) understand the love affair many Americans have with them. The fact is, England is not America, we do things differently here and I for one am glad that guns have managed to stay out of mainstream circulation.

Last year, 81 people were shot and killed in the entire country (data found here). Tragic though each case undoubtedly is, thats not a huge figure in the slightest. Imagine, though, the increase in that figure if gun laws were slightly more lax and firearms fell into the possession of not only home owners, but burglars as well. I'm not suggesting outright guerilla warfare would break out each time an intruder was caught, but the intensity and violence of the situation would escalate to a level that could only result in more deaths and a greater consumption of police resources that far outsrips the nature of the original crime. While I agree that people have every right to defend their homes against intruders and to use violence if necessary, I think it's equally important to ensure that fighting to the death is restricted to the minority of cases where an intruder breaks into a house specifically to cause the occupants harm. To this end, the first step on the road to success is the maintenance and improvement of our current gun laws and not their relaxation.

I guess I'm naive in that I draw the line at putting a dent in the head of anyone who puts me or my family at risk, but that's how it goes.

Haha, yeah, I've read it and thoroughly enjoyed it Lebell. I just wrote that because this thread touches on fundamental issues from 'Atlas Shrugged.'

I recently learned this in LAW class a couple of months ago and was disturbed by it. I understand that our law system wouldn't work if people could mortally wound others for breaking and entering, but damn, if someone is breaking into another's house then they're simply asking for it.

I think that a citizen stupid enough to break into another person's home is asking to be force-fed a lead sandwich with extra mayo. Same thing with robbing in towns or mugging. When I get outta college I'm getting my concealed permit ASAP. If I ever see someone attempting to rob me or hurt my family, they're simply gonna get hurt. If they have a gun, then we're going down cowboy style. If they have a knife...cowboy style in the leg. If they're unarmed, I'm becoming the next .500 Babe Ruth with a baseball bat.

I personally believe that once you break into someone's house with the intent on stealing, trashing, or hurting the people inside, you've given up your right as a citizen or even a human. You've become a thief, someone who deserves the ass kicking you're going to receive or the inevitable jail-time if you're caught.

-Lasereth

That kind of reads like rhetoric to me. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to imagine I could take down anyone who happened to venture into my place.

"You're gonna regret it one way or another, as long as you're smaller/drunker/less armed than me." Plus, here, it's quite illegal to just cap someone, even when they're on your property. Self defence is a tricky one to pull in that instance, unless they're threatening your life. You guys in the US can keep a loaded gun and shoot the motherfucker as soon as he steps over your threshold. So naturally, you'll have a more gung ho attitude than us.

If in doubt, waste him/her and lay him/her across the window. It's a simple rule I learned from my father. The police may question the dead intruder inside or outside of your home. They don't question why he's (she's) dead trying to break in.

...and they'll never even worry about the large red spots in the hallway where you actually shot them?
You'll be able to explain shooting someone in a darkened room, but never be able to explain a moved body.
Please read the advice above regarding home defense and self defense legalities.
You MIGHT get the same effect if you take a knife from the kitchen and place it in their hand or find a weapon on them. still, if you need to do this you have broken the law and murdered someone.

As an aside, I'd reconsider any other advice your father gave you.

You're wrong on many account. Having taken law classes in the state of Texas, taught by someone who has practiced law in the state for the last thirty years, it is not legal to assault or kill someone on your property that has not offered you the threat of lethal force. I highly suggest you hit up a site like www.findlaw.com to actually learn what's on the books before shooting off your mouth.

There are also documented court cases of people who have been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for having a shotgun wired to fire at the front door of a house if it was opened from the outside. A man had his home repeatedly burgled, decided to put a shotgun on a stand, aimed at his front door. When the burglars came back again, the shotgun discharged, a burglar was harmed, and the homeowner went to jail for aggravated assault.

Some of you people need to actually do some research into the statutes of your state and nation before spouting out incorrect information.

Let me repeat this:

Offering lethal force to someone who has not already attempted to use lethal force upon you constitutes aggravated assault or attempted murder; using lethal force upon someone who has not attempted to use it upon you is murder; if someone attempts to use any sort of physical or lethal force upon you, you have a duty to flee if posssible; only if force or threat of lethal force is used upon you, AND you have no ability to flee, then and only then, can you use lethal force and have it classified as self-defense.

Actually, guns were TAKEN out of mainstream circulation in England. If you want to educate yourself about your own country and don't mind a bit of reading, check out this essay:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

If I'm not mistaken, the state of texas qualifies that any home invasion/breakin can be interpreted with the suspects intent to do physical harm in most cases. This exempts about 90% of homeowners responsible for the slaying of an assailant.

I skimmed it, thanks for the interesting read. I don't see how reading an article on the gradual erosion of British gun laws based on American concepts of civil liberty teaches me anything about my own country, however. In the long run, the views of American scholars aren't going to affect the law here. I also wasn't overly impressed with the author equating the removal of our "right" to own a gun with "a slide down a slippery slope". I see owning a gun as neither a demonstration of civil liberty or a right, but that's a subject for another thread and one in which I doubt my view would find much sympathy.

However, interesting though it is, it doesn't change the fact that guns are not in mainstream circulation in England and haven't been for some time. My point remains unchanged.

Including getting away with killing the guy who has the legal right to reposess your car.
It's happened where the homeowner has shot the guy in the driveway.

got a link? I'd like to read the story.

ya know, george bush scares the shit outta me, but seeing the above article makes me have to like him at least a little- at least here we arent helpless sheep waiting for slaughter....... and good to see austrailia heading the right way too- the way i see it the law should protect me from the criminal, not the other way around.....

and god forbid that our legal system operate under the stricture that until a person physically threatens--or takes--the life of another human being, they have not forfeitted their own right to continuing life. :rolleyes:

I don't think that the use of lethal force is necessary to protect your home there are plenty other ways to deter a thief, sure a bat/golf club isn't very practical (long swinging weapons in tight spaces?) but the look of a guy in his underwear wielding a kitchen knife, I would think, would be enough to make most thiefs head to the door. This of coarse changes if the would be thief is armed, in witch case I think any and all means because that guy has come in to do damage.

what would you rather have? law abiding citizens with the right to life or criminals with the freedom to terrorize innocent people?

you'd rather have self-imposed death penalties for theft than have some society that believes that the punishments handed down by the courts should--hell, i dunno--maybe fit the crimes?

theft and burglary, under the common law cases provided by our nation, is not grounds for loss of life. call me crazy, but i don't think thieves should be summarily executed, and somehow--and i know this part is really nuts--the courts seem to feel the same way.


you want summary execution, the People's Republic of China is the place for you.

Rat, the point that we're trying to make is when it's dark we dont KNOW if they're just there for the tv, or to slit our throats in our sleep. It's not our duty to figure that out.

Anyways, as long as the shotgun blast is in the front it's hard for any lawyer to to prove the intruder wasnt threatening force.

Rat: if people were executed for delibrately breaking into someone's house and attempting to steal things then maybe the burglary rate would go down? I value my property above a thieves' life... by breaking into my property he has reduced himself from a person who should be allowed rights to someone who should have none as he attempted to deprive me of my right to live in my property without fear.

Why wait for the intruder to threaten harm before handling him? If someone is in my house at night, I am going to assume my loved ones are in danger and will handle him accordingly. It's not as if he was invited you know. Were he so worried about his rights and/or health he could have chosen to not break into my home.

I can see your point in that you're not allowed to just shoot ANY person who breaks and enters. example, broad daylight...guy crawls through the window.....you say FREEZE or GET THE F' OUT!!!!, however, as others have said, if its dark out and theres someone poking around my living room or coming down the hallway they get one chance to stop when I say so. If they don't then i'm pulling the trigger. My wife and kids are worth more than the life of a thief.

and another question is, do criminals *deserve* the protection of the law? in my mind, you get the protection of civilized society, only when you toe the line and are part of that society. a criminal is not, he has made a decision to drop out of that society and prey upon its members. therefore, if a person is not conforming to the law, and enters my house against the law, surely he is forfeiting the protection of the law?

but, i guess thats to much of a deep question for this thread. rightly or wrongly, i will not take chance with my family. somebody in my house, they get it. anybody else is free to take the action they feel is correct....

the details of the article, as has been stated, involve a man shot in the back with a shotgun.

additionally, i'm not so naiive just say "wing him", but the law draws the line at a viable threat to your life, including your duty to flee. these aren't just beliefs, they're written laws. additionally, anyone shot in the back from across a room does not constitute a reasonable threat to your life.

Criminals do indeed deserve the protection of civilized society, for the simple fact that a true measure of society is how it treats those in the margins, whether they be the homeless and destitute or the hardened criminals. I'm a staunch advocate of the death penalty, when it is applied by the courts. I'm also an advocate of the 2nd Amendment. What I'm not and advocate of is vigilante justice. The whole reason we have a legal process is to protect the rights of all, and one does not forfeit their rights until they have been found guilty of a crime under the eyes of the law. Even then, with the majority of all crimes, criminals loose their right to free movement (imprisonment), not their right to life. The entire reason there lies differences, delineations, and demarcations among the various forms of criminal acts is to have the punishment fit the crime. Even a convicted felon does not forfeit their right to appeal their sentence. Guaranteeing the absolute rights of all is the only true way to have the repression of none.

As a final addendum, at the point a criminal (someone who breaks the law) forfeits their protection under society, the maxim would posit anyone who has: jaywalked, broken the speed limit, turned without signalling, changed lanes in an intersection, consumed alcohol underaged, provided alcohol to underaged people, consumed marijuana or any other illicit drugs, smoked cigarettes prior to being 18, or comitted any number of federal, state and local statute violations (including in New York City not facing the doors of an elevator and standing with one's hands at one's sides)--all those things and more, that logical maxim would say we all would have forfeited the protection of society. Hell, by that maxim, no one would be guaranteed a (relatively) fair and impartial trial, the right to an attorney, or any of the other basic rights (including privacy) that we are all guaranteed.

by law, it is. and you could argue till you're blue in the face that it's not, but the law of the United States says very clearly that it is your duty to determine who they are and be able to prove a viable and real threat to your life prior to killing them. honestly, you should do some research into the subject instead of just mouthing the misconceptions you have about our legal system.

1) Dont assume you know more than everyone.

2) The homeowner doesnt have to prove a "viable and real" threat, the state has to prove that at the time the homeowner knew he didnt posess a threat (till proven guilty.. remember that one?). Once they enter someone's elses property illegally, they give reasonable proof of being a real threat. The homeowner is not obligated to turn on the lights, giving himself away in a VERY dangerous situation, to see if the intruder has a weapon. Now you can go on the law if you like but if you did in fact graduate law school you will know that in MANY cases the intent of the law is considered more heavily than the actual word usage.

3) According to self defense laws the person who feels threatened is allowed to take whatever instant action he feels necissary as long as it's not premeditated. I.E. He cant go to his car to get a gun, but if it's right next to him he's allowed to grab and use it.

as far as thinking i know more than everyone, i honestly don't. but someone even mildly acquainted with the related statutes and case law of self-defense, let alone burglarly/theft would know better than to sound off with alot of the things in this thread--especially the ones who think that killing a trespasser for simply trespassing or a burglar for simply burgling is acceptable in states like Texas. the key point i've attempted to make since the first post in this thread is that people need to do two things before posting about "what is legal": 1) speak from a point of being informed, and 2) have a position that is at least somehow grounded in fact or verifiable legal documentation/cases/rulings.

secondly, self-defense is one of the few times an accused has a burden of proof at all in our legal system. whether it simply be preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt, they have to have a legitimate claim to the fact that they honestly believed their life was threatened. does it have to be 100% verifiable? absolutely not. does it have to show that a reasonable person in a like situation would feel/think/act the same way? yes. I'm not saying anything is ironclad, but it has to fall somewhere within the realm of reason. shooting a man in the back with a shotgun who is running away from you doesn't constitute self-defense. it may constitute home-defense, but many people in this thread failed to understand that there lies a fundamental difference in the concepts of self-defense and home-defense.

as far as going off the intent of the law rather than the letter, there I agree with you. however, in the case of burglary and the subsequent acts of homeowners taking the law into their own hands, the intent of the courts and their interpretation of the law is pretty clear--vigilante justice is not something they generally appreciate. just as with any rule of life, legal proceeding, or written legislation, there will be exceptions of the rule--the point is to make people realize that they are exceptions, and not the rule.

If you read my post I NEVER said anything about shooting a man in the back.

We finally agreed on something though, that they only have to have a reasonable claim to why they felt their life was threatened. A person breaks into your house and you meet face to face with him in a dark hallway... that's reason enough for me.

I'm not talking about the guy who hooked a gun to his doorframe, or shot a guy in the back. Which, though, is easy enough to fix by yelling HEY (not saying do this, but stating it's impossible to prove he wasnt defending himself... being shot in the front).

Let me ask you...did you study the laws that pertain to this or are you conveniently forgetting what the law in Texas says in regards to deadly force?

Texas law states deadly force can be used if...
Which is what you refer to.
And even more explicit is State Statute Title 2 Chapter 9 Section 42. Which deals directly with deadly force and theft...
Rat not sure if you live here or not but the sheer fact in my 26 years and after hearing of many cases like this not one person,to my knowledge, that shot a robber in their house had a single charge filed against them that stuck.. Your statements MIGHT be true for other states but as for here...it's not true and next time YOU decide you want to clambor upon your high horse and try to tell somebody to "look it up" that you follow your own advice first.

You keep saying this, but I can tell you with all confidence that a homeowner in Colorado does NOT have to retreat or prove that the person was a threat before using lethal force. (So shooting a buglar in the back would be perfectly legal.)

If you need proof, feel free to google Colorado + make my day law.

So perhaps it is you who should do some research before making such pronouncements.

Oh BTW as far as the effort to retreat in Texas...it states...

It's very likely that a reasonable person would not retreat in their own home.

Actually, I feel that if I break into your house to steal your stuff, you should have the right to kill me- seems fair to me, but then I am not a burglar by trade either- simply put, I feel that certain things cause a person to forfiet their right to go on living- among them, rape, murder, armed robbery or entering anothers dwelling to steal something- I do not care about someone elses rights when they are violating mine- I think that we work hard for our stuff, and therefore should have rights to defend it, and I for one have no qualms about killing someone that tries to take whats mine