Let's go.........RANDOM!

[Montyphy]

And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

I could possibly understand if the person's or their family's life was being seriously threatened but the value a business or property is nothing compared to that of a life, even if the person in question is a looter/arsonist/criminal.

[Feud]

And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

I could possibly understand if the person's or their family's life was being seriously threatened but the value a business or property is nothing compared to that of a life, even if the person in question is a looter/arsonist/criminal.

The value of a life is percious, yes. But trying to set buildings on fire endangers the lives of countless others, and threatens the life of the very community itself. It threatens the life, health and future of those who depend upon that business, both directly and indirectly. It contributes to and encourages the general anarchy of a riot, and the associated dangers to both lives, property, and public order that such bring. There's risk of it spreading and taking out a city block or two, and it places those who have to put it out in significant danger as well.

Certainly, it is preferable to stop the person without shooting them if possible. But in a riotous situation, where the police are either unable or unwilling to do so, I think that the property owner should at least have the option. It's unreasonable to expect them to restrain and detain the person(s) by hand, as that puts everyone (especially the innocent) at significantly greater risk of injury or death, and I find it appalling to think that they should be expected to just sit back and watch.

[Jordy...]

And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

I really don't want to get in this argument again, but I still find this way of thinking incredibly disturbing.

We always seem to agree don't we?!

Life is invaluable, materials are not. If someone is setting fire near your home just get out and away, then insurance will pay out. No need to shoot anyone. You ever think that these looters are not out to get innocent people, but rather are having fun/angry/troubled or whatever? Responding with brute violence seems the worse answer there is to such problems.

[Montyphy]

But trying to set buildings on fire endangers the lives of countless others, and threatens the life of the very community itself.

So in your opinion arson should be a capital offence? To add a little perspective, there wasn't a single death as a result of the fires.

It threatens the life, health and future of those who depend upon that business, both directly and indirectly.

Which is why we have the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 which grants compensation from the police for the loss and damage of property and its contents during a riot.

It contributes to and encourages the general anarchy of a riot, and the associated dangers to both lives, property, and public order that such bring. There's risk of it spreading and taking out a city block or two, and it places those who have to put it out in significant danger as well.

That in no way justifies lethal force, especially from people taking the law into their own hand and when there are non-lethal alternatives.

But in a riotous situation, where the police are either unable or unwilling to do so, I think that the property owner should at least have the option.

Unwilling? The UK hasn't exactly had an unturbulent past and this is what we pay and train our police to handle. Otherwise why have a police force in the first place? If they did what they were suppose to do it would have been resolved a lot faster and most likely wouldn't have happened either. Instead they cocked up then spent almost 3 days doing very little enforcement of any kind in the hope that things would calm itself down and that they would be able to catch the perpetrators at later dates.

It's unreasonable to expect them to restrain and detain the person(s) by hand, as that puts everyone (especially the innocent) at significantly greater risk of injury or death

So because you can't detain them you should just kill them instead? :/ Anyway, I thought we were talking about defending a property? Detaining and restraining is going beyond just defending, and just defending is exactly what hundreds of people successfully did and all without using lethal force.

and I find it appalling to think that they should be expected to just sit back and watch.

So in your opinion you only see two options, lethal force or sit back and watch? :/

[Feud]

You ever think that these looters are not out to get innocent people, but rather are having fun/angry/troubled or whatever?

Yes, actually. Everything I said was with the assumption that such were their motives.

So in your opinion arson should be a capital offence? But to put things into a little perspective, there wasn't a single death as a result of the fires.

That depends on the situation, I can think of a few cases where the answer might be "yes" but generally such would involve arson being a means by which a larger crime would have occured and so I don't know that I would rightly say that I'd consider arson a capital crime. My comments though weren't in regard to post incident judicial punishment, but rather acceptable options in the immediate situation. For example, say a person were to threaten you with a gun, and you (in defense) killed them. They didn't actually kill you, or perhaps even attempt to shoot you, and so if they had lived they might not have gotten a capital punsihment. But, your actions and the consequence of their deaths are still justified, because they happened during the incident to prevent a potential larger harm. That's the difference between what I said and your comparison to a capital offense, I'm not talking about reasoned mediation while the person is locked in a cell under guard, I'm talking about defense in the moment the crime is being committed.

As for there not being any deaths by fire, that's wonderful! That doesn't mean that the arsonists weren't recklessly endangering scores of lives, it just means that those people were fortunate enough to survive.

Which is why we have the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 which grants compensation from the police for the loss and damage of property and its contents during a riot.

And if they are shot, England has great medical care for all, right? Of course, that's a silly statement to make, because simply having access to medical care doesn't mean that the immediate and long term effects of injury are suddenly undone. It just means that if harm is caused, that one aspect is somewhat offset.

That law doesn't bring back a lost life, that doesn't compensate for shattered dreams, stress realted health issues, etc. And I doubt that it covers the increase in insurance costs, economic downturn to the local economy, and subsequent impact on other businesses. While it might pay the physical monetary costs of the fire, the actual cost to the lives of the people involved and the community is far greater than money.

It contributes to and encourages the general anarchy of a riot, and the associated dangers to both lives, property, and public order that such bring. There's risk of it spreading and taking out a city block or two, and it places those who have to put it out in significant danger as well.

That in no way justifies lethal force, especially from people taking the law into their own hand and when there are non-lethal alternatives.

I disagree. (Also, "non-lethal" alternatives are limited to asking them to stop. Once physical force is used, whether by means of hands, a stick, pepper spray, tazers, or a gun, there is no such things as "non-lethal". All are potentially lethal, it's just a matter of degrees.)

But in a riotous situation, where the police are either unable or unwilling to do so, I think that the property owner should at least have the option.

Unwilling? The UK hasn't exactly had an unturbulent past and this is what we pay and train our police to handle. Otherwise why have a police force in the first place? If they did what they were suppose to do it would have been resolved a lot faster and most likely wouldn't have happened either. Instead they cocked up then spent almost 3 days doing very little enforcement of any kind in the hope that things would calm itself down and that they would be able to catch the perpetrators at later dates.

You seem to be agreeing with my point. The London police, in some instances, were either unable or unwilling to supress the riots. Whether such was out of fear of escalation, litigation, or hopes that it would calm itself down, they weren't acting. I'm all for letting the police do the work. But if the police are unwilling or unable to act, then the duty of preservation of life, property, and community is in the hands of the people.

So because you can't detain them you should just kill them instead? :/ Anyway, I thought we were talking about defending a property? Detaining and restraining is going beyond just defending, and just defending is exactly what hundreds of people successfully did and all without using lethal force.

So in your opinion you only see two options, lethal force or sit back and watch? :/

You can try to scare off the arsonist, and maybe you can. Then what? They set a fire somewhere else, perhaps where people are less able to defend themselves? Maybe down the street, and hope that the wind is blowing the other direction?

And your choice is a false one, I didn't say the only two options are to kill them or watch. I said that it is preferable to stop them without shooting them, but that in an extreme situation the option to use a firearm should be availble. And that's what I meant, that there are other outcomes other than shooting them that would be preferable, but that such an option shouldn't be excluded if those other options aren't possible or are unreasonable to expect.


*************

Also: Hobbit!

[DTNC Vicious]

Just saw the new Dark Knight rises trailer, was anyone else shocked to see the flying tumbler?

[Xocrates]

Feud, do you know the likely origin of the expression "Hung for a sheep as a lamb"?

It came from a time where the punishement for both minor and major offenses was the same (death), so the expression rose because if you were going to commit a crime there wasn't a point in not going all in.

Saying that people should be allowed to shoot looters on sight reminds me of this for the sole reason that if a looter is getting (potentially) killed anyway, there really is no difference between looting a place and killing the owner and loot the place anyway. It's an invitation to escalation.

[Feud]

Saying that people should be allowed to shoot looters on sight reminds me of this for the sole reason that if a looter is getting (potentially) killed anyway, there really is no difference between looting a place and killing the owner and loot the place anyway. It's an invitation to escalation.

I understand the worry about that, but that's not how things tend to happen. In many parts of the US, for example, a person breaking into a home may be shot by the homeowner. There has not, however, been an escalation of people simply killing a homeowner and then robbing the house. The same was also said (on this forum included) that carrying concealed legally would result in escalation of violence since muggers, fearful of being killed, would simply attack victims outright to cripple or kill them. This also has proven to be false.

The escalation doesn't occur, because it is simply easier for one side to let the other have its way*. Either the crime gets committed, or the criminal moves on to an easier target.

*To a degree it happens at the organized level, between gangs and cartels against one another, but not really at the lower level. Such isn't shown at least, as far as I'm aware, to happen statistically. Further, in the US there is anecdotal evidence against it. In the riots in LA in the early 90's, for example, some store owners defended their property with firearms. Even in an area awash in illegal guns and gun crimes such as Watts, escalation didn't occur. Instead, the looters moved on to other targets that weren't so well defended.


*****************

997 and counting, I'm doing my part to help get us to 1k! Also, the Steam Christmas sale, coming so soon after the Thanksgiving sale, is down right brutal.

Really, at this point the only game I'm really wanting is the Fall of the Samurai addon for Shogun, and that doesn't come out for a few months. Other than that, not much out there really piques my interest enough for me to really want it.

[Xocrates]

The escalation doesn't occur, because it is simply easier for one side to let the other have its way*. Either the crime gets committed, or the criminal moves on to an easier target.

Which leads to an interesting case: The reason there is no escalation is because the escalation never started. As such there is no need for the laws that allow it.

I.e. if people won't shoot the criminals anyway, why should they be allowed to do so? Especially if doing so could start the escalation?

It's the difference between a gamble (there could be escalation) and a certainty (there won't be)

[ynbniar]

A while back I recall we discussed access to firearms in relation to the Mumbai attack...Feud I think you argued that if civilians were carrying they could have intervened, mitigating the extent of the attack.

My take on it is that having a gun isn't enough, not even near it...in the chaos how would you know who was a terrorist and who was an armed civilian?

I see the same problem with the idea of property owners being able to shoot looters in a riot...how do you, while in a panic, identify legitimate targets and avoid shooting your next door neighbour?

Training would be the answer but then who pays and for how long? Handing out guns and offering free reign without proper training and regular refreshers is a recipe for disaster.

I recall a few years back a visitor to the USA was worried he was about to be attacked and approached a house looking for help...the home owner shot him dead, no charges if I recall correctly (can't find the link). A place where you're as likely to be shot looking for help as you are from a criminal isn't a safe place.

[Feud]

I see the same problem with the idea of property owners being able to shoot looters in a riot...how do you, while in a panic, identify legitimate targets and avoid shooting your next door neighbour?

Again, my comments thus far have been about arsonists, but in answer to your question: A good way to tell the difference is that a looter is the person who is smashing in your windows and stealing your things, and your next door neighbor is (hopefully) not. Similarly, a good way to tell the difference between an arsonist and someone who is not is that the arsonist is the one who is trying to set your building on fire.

Training would be the answer but then who pays and for how long? Handing out guns and offering free reign without proper training and regular refreshers is a recipe for disaster.

I've advocated training numerous times on this forum, I've always said training on proper use is essential to responsible gun ownership. As to who pays, there are numerous options. Here training is done for profit, by communities, by non profits, etc.

I recall a few years back a visitor to the USA was worried he was about to be attacked and approached a house looking for help...the home owner shot him dead, no charges if I recall correctly (can't find the link). A place where you're as likely to be shot looking for help as you are from a criminal isn't a safe place.

Having lived here for 28 years, and literally knocked upon well over ten thousand doors for various reasons, I've yet to be shot. I'd be interested in seeing that story when you find it, but the notion that Americans are constantly a breath away from a massive gun battle or being murdered by a well meaning trigger happy person is complete fantasy. As made up as the claims that British people can't cook, have ugly women, and bad teeth.

[trickser]

I wonder if it would be legal for a looter to shoot the owner in self defense.

[Jordy...]

I think it's all ridiculous, we recently have had a couple of cases were a burglar and a robber got killed. I can understand the fear and thus anger and frustration of the victims, but the violence was in no proportion to the crime committed.
We have laws so people get punished in a reasonable way according to most. If you allow people to let loose there aggression on criminals they've caught you are degenerating as a society.

[Feud]

I think it's all ridiculous, we recently have had a couple of cases were a burglar and a robber got killed. I can understand the fear and thus anger and frustration of the victims, but the violence was in no proportion to the crime committed.
We have laws so people get punished in a reasonable way according to most. If you allow people to let loose there aggression on criminals they've caught you are degenerating as a society.

Certainly, punishments should be reasonable. But a person killing an intruder in their home isn't punishing them. Punishments occur secondary as a means of corrective action, not as a present response to an unresolved situation.

While it may be unreasonable for a court system to levy a punishment of death upon a burglar after they have been caught, such is different than if that same burglar is killed by a homeowner while in the commission of the crime. The homeowner doesn't have the luxery of looking at a past event, weighing out what did and did not happen in detached safety. Instead, they are presented with a situation where their safest place has been violated, and are left with uncertainty about the intruders abilities, numbers, intentions, and history. For that reason greater leeway should be given to them to act as they feel appropriate to maintain their safety. I'm not saying they should be shooting someone in the back as they run away down the street, but they shouldn't be expected to wait until the person is attacking them either. Breaking into someone's home is an act of violence in and of itself, and it is appropriate to respond to such accordingly.

Such isn't a degeneration of society, just the opposite. In such situations we can either err on the side of the health and safety of the aknowledged criminal, or err on the side of the health and safety of the aknowledged innocent. Certainly, the accused deserve the protection of laws and fairness in the courts. But a society that protects its criminals during the commission of crimes from the self defense of their victims places the value of evil above that of good. Such is true degeneracy.

[Jordy...]

The homeowner should adjust his response according to the situation needs, ofcourse due to psychological factors you can argue for a wider margin of legal responses, but in no case should it be a free-pass for a homeowner to kill a burglar after it's clear such an action is unnecessary.

I would imagine a burglar would run straight off if someone pointed a gun at him, and that should be the end of it, allowing to get your own justice by killing the person is disgusting.