I have an idea for a new thread...

[Kranswurm]

Yip, exact thing happened to me. With a knife at your throat and 2 guys rummaging over you, the last thing you want is for someone to be a hero and antagonize the knifeman.

 

What you want is for them to take whatever is lying around and leave. It is just stuff.

 

My thoughts weren’t “how do I take them out”, they were “how do I keep them calm and get to see my family tonight”...

When 13 my son was coming back from a swim along the Catwalk in Fish Hoek when he was mugged with a knife for his phone.He asked the asshole if he could take out the sim card and he said yes.My son remained cool and calm so it did not escalate...thats the secret

[Allrounder]

If you help someone, you might get stabbed or go to jail.... 

 

Criminals have more human rights than victims. 

[MTBeer]

If you help someone, you might get stabbed or go to jail.... 

 

Criminals have more human rights than victims. 

I see this line trotted out often on the interwebs. It's simply not true - everyone has the same rights. You might not like those rights when applied to criminals, but that is a different debate.

[MTBeer]

from the Guardian

 

Beijing’s new airport is just the latest megaproject that has seen China pour more concrete every two years than the US did in the entire 20th century

[forkie]

I see this line trotted out often on the interwebs. It's simply not true - everyone has the same rights. You might not like those rights when applied to criminals, but that is a different debate.

yes and no. what you say is 100% correct under law. but the law should also reflect the peoples will. i think 99.9% of the population will agree that if someone takes away your rights by trying to harm you or relieve you of your posessions, they automatically give up their own rights in the process. but the law sees it differently. i am still expected to respect the rights of the person who is busy taking away mine - thus leaving me as a law abiding citizen helpless to defend myself.

[MTBeer]

yes and no. what you say is 100% correct under law. but the law should also reflect the peoples will. i think 99.9% of the population will agree that if someone takes away your rights by trying to harm you or relieve you of your posessions, they automatically give up their own rights in the process. but the law sees it differently. i am still expected to respect the rights of the person who is busy taking away mine - thus leaving me as a law abiding citizen helpless to defend myself.

no. you can use force when you feel your life is threatened.

[forkie]

no. you can use force when you feel your life is threatened.

but you cant use force if your property is being threatened. And that is why criminals have more rights. 

[MTBeer]

but you cant use force if your property is being threatened. And that is why criminals have more rights. 

you can't kill somebody, but you can act against them physically.

[forkie]

you can't kill somebody, but you can act against them physically.

again thats a load of crap. Generally a criminal is a lot tougher stronger stupider and violenter than your normal middle class white guy. so you say i can act against them physically. what am i supposed to do? i am not allowed to pull a gun until i feel my life is under threat. so i have to wait until they are kicking my ass before i can defend myself. its stupid

[Lotus]

I see this line trotted out often on the interwebs. It's simply not true - everyone has the same rights. You might not like those rights when applied to criminals, but that is a different debate.

It's been mentioned a few times before - the reason the victim gets charged for shooting a criminal is simply because that's how the police have to process the case.

 

The investigating officer can't make a call on whether the shooter was an innocent victim or bystander. That's up to the prosecutor, based on evidence that the police will gather in a formal and methodical process. The reality is that the prosecutor will invariably look at the merits of the case and decline to prosecute. The "victim" is then informed, without going to court and no stain on their record.

 

I may be mistaken on some of the details, but that's (largely) how it plays out. Anyone else know the facts about this?

[forkie]

It's been mentioned a few times before - the reason the victim gets charged for shooting a criminal is simply because that's how the police have to process the case.

 

The investigating officer can't make a call on whether the shooter was an innocent victim or bystander. That's up to the prosecutor, based on evidence that the police will gather in a formal and methodical process. The reality is that the prosecutor will invariably look at the merits of the case and decline to prosecute. The "victim" is then informed, without going to court and no stain on their record.

 

I may be mistaken on some of the details, but that's (largely) how it plays out. Anyone else know the facts about this?

agreed this would be the case in a life and death situation, but it would not be the case if i shot someone who was breaking into my house just to steal. this is where i have a problem. i cannot defend my property. 

[MTBeer]

again thats a load of crap. Generally a criminal is a lot tougher stronger stupider and violenter than your normal middle class white guy. so you say i can act against them physically. what am i supposed to do? i am not allowed to pull a gun until i feel my life is under threat. so i have to wait until they are kicking my ass before i can defend myself. its stupid

ok

[forkie]

ok

why do i feel like you are just saying that to keep me quiet? 

[MTBeer]

[Lotus]

agreed this would be the case in a life and death situation, but it would not be the case if i shot someone who was breaking into my house just to steal. this is where i have a problem. i cannot defend my property. 

Maybe that's where you have to decide whether your response is proportional to the threat.

[forkie]

Maybe that's where you have to decide whether your response is proportional to the threat.

i know - i get that. responsible firearm owner and all that. but I still feel that the deck is stacked in favour of the criminal and against the law abiding citizen.