The Honda Owners Club

What do you think of the pending legislation that will allow individuals to use 'proportional' force - physical violence - to protect themselves, others and their property against illegal violence?

If the government condones such actions by the individuals as a legitimate response to illegal violence, why is the government not using legal violence to combat illegal violence in the country as a whole?

They already participate in 'legal' violence against 'illegal' violence on the international scene, why is there the huge gap between a householder 'having a go' and military actions overseas?

In giving up legalized violence have we relinquished a right and proper tool against illegal violence? Is 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' an immoral concept?

hmmmmmmmm interesting - I cannot agree withi an 'eye for an eye' as a policy but see merit with 'proportional' force if this means a policeman cuffing a youngster stealing apples rather than taking him it through a juvanille court and someone protecting themselves and their home against a thief by clouting them.

I was interrupted an intruder trying to break into our home through a window. If I had caught him (difficult to chase after him as I had just got out of the shower and only had a towel around me!) I would definitely have used violence, I was so angry....................dread to think what I would do to anyone who tried to steal my bike!!!!

Does the man who has his hand chopped off for stealing steal again???

Barry wrote:What do you think of the pending legislation that will allow individuals to use 'proportional' force - physical violence - to protect themselves, others and their property against illegal violence?

If the government condones such actions by the individuals as a legitimate response to illegal violence, why is the government not using legal violence to combat illegal violence in the country as a whole?

They already participate in 'legal' violence against 'illegal' violence on the international scene, why is there the huge gap between a householder 'having a go' and military actions overseas?

In giving up legalized violence have we relinquished a right and proper tool against illegal violence? Is 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' an immoral concept?

A very interesting debate Barry

What's your view?

You have always been entitled to use proportional and 'Reasonable' force to defend yourself, property or others. The proportion of force is also liknked to your own individual capabilities. For example, a third dan black belt in something coming across a 15 year old youth stealing from his garage would not be entitled to beat the 'C**P' out of him as he would not be sufficiently threatened to use such force. However, an 80 year old pensioner, might get away with belting the youngster with a poker or something heavy!!
Equally, the farmer who shot the 16 year old IN THE BACK as he was leaving the premisis was not entitled to use such force! he of course paid the penalty for it!

As I see it Barry, the Government are merely trying to make the law clearer, which must be a good thing! Particularly as we all have a different view on what is REASONABLE !!

...

2 Strokes wrote:
What's your view?

Fear is THE motivator. Physical violence, is the most powerful element of fear. Those acting illegally have increased fear as an element of their activities. At the same time society has relinquished the element of fear in their armament against those acting illegally.

In 'giving the nod' to householders the government seems to be accepting the principle of fear as a deterrent - (I suggest it would have been reasonable if Erica had grabbed a kitchen knife off of the counter and stabbed her intruder) - whilst avoiding any direct responsibility for inducing fear in those acting illegally - except of course road users and smokers.

I'm with you on this - the "state" has gone too far in protecting the guilty while allowing the innocent to be victimised.

So, bring back the "clip round the ear" - much more effective and best of all, it's immediate - so there's a correlation between the crime and the punishment.

Just my 2c worth...

Alan

I agree with Alan and Lady Pegasus....the punishment should fit the crime as well.........Like LP said...ur not gonna steal again if ur hands have been chopped off and not kill again if u've been hung etc......and everyone should be punished no matter what age.....if ur old enough to do the crime ...ur old enough to be punished for it.....what deterent is there in this country for commiting a crime.........none what-so-ever. Like Alan said...this country protects the guilty not the innocent.
I think all of society should stand up and fight back, then maybe the criminals would think twice before ruining someones life.
Ro xx

I think that, as a general principle, if a person is not prepared to live by the rules of our society, then they should forfeit the right to any protection from it.

So, for instance, if a burglar injures himself breaking into one of your houses tonight, then it should be his problem, and not the owner of the property.

Skipper wrote:I think that, as a general principle, if a person is not prepared to live by the rules of our society, then they should forfeit the right to any protection from it.

I think that this could open up a whole can of worms...what about the person that harms your child...would you do nothing? I certainly would do time!
It's going to bring around a future society that is not willing to stand up for themselves or be willing to help others (i.e. intervening on the mugging you might see) as they will be worried of the consequences they might face.
But on the other hand do we want a load of vigilanties running around taking the law into their own hands!

ChrisTR wrote:Equally, the farmer who shot the 16 year old IN THE BACK as he was leaving the premisis was not entitled to use such force! he of course paid the penalty for it!

What ChrisTR has failled to say abouth this (and I think we all remember the outrage) is those kids that he shot in the back had been terrorising this guy and burglaring his farm for some time, the poor guy had had enough and was at wits end...if this was your father/grandfather would you still think he was wrong to use the force he did!
If you did something wrong at school before they banned the cane, would you have carried on doing it!
How many times nowadays do you hear people saying about how when they were younger they could run around the streets playing, in and out of houses, leaving your back door unlocked...WHY!
Because if you got caught doing something wrong, you got punished! None of this..."you cant touch me or I'm gonna ring childline" (and yes I've been told this by a kid bulling my child!)
If you break into someones house, which you clearly know is the wrong thing to do, and you get caught, be expected to be punished, what happened to a 'mans house is his castle' for christs sake! Why shouldn't you be allowed to protect your family and property!!!
Its funny how everyone looks back on the 'olden days' with fond memories.

Now dont get me started on my views that if you live in our country then you live as we do! The same as we are expected to when we go over there!

ladypegasus wrote:Now dont get me started on my views that if you live in our country then you live as we do! The same as we are expected to when we go over there!

This is probably another Topic. But I am not sure if there is any real 'mileage' in it.

The vast majority of illegality in this country - from murder to DHSS fraud - is perpetrated by locals. True, there a a very few immigrants, who influenced by the locals and seeing how easy it is to get away with illegal activities, do join in!

I saw the BBC TV news editor this morning trying to explain their coverage of what now seems to have been a well overstated outburst from the Chief Constable of Cambridge re immigrants and crime.
I doubt if the Sun Newspaper will bother to explain their rather lurid and inflammatory headlines - so an urban myth is perpetuated.

I think that this is one of those topics that could run and run!..

.....I think that all of the comments made thus far are valid!..we are all right!
..I do agree that with modern DNA testing making forensic evidence 'concrete' that we should bring back PUBLIC Hanging for certain crimes. Maybe even Flogging too!!...Er..OOps!!, have I gone too far?

if you chop their hands, off you will just clog the nhs up with cases. and drain more money from us.

or they will go on the dole and scrounge further ....

best bet , if its 100% proven its them, kill them .. get rid ...

but no more mis carraiges of justice please .......

Lady Peg...

I think you misunderstood me. I'm all for doing something about it. What I was trying to say is that someone who deliberately goes out to break the law shouldn't expect to be able avail themselves of it's benefits when their activities go wrong.

As for vigilante justice, I'm of two minds. I know that basically it is not a good idea, but you will notice that those who protest about vigilanteism the most vehemently are the police and the legal system. That's right, those who have the biggest interest in the status quo. The same folks who are letting us down so badly.

I think I could make a case for saying that if the people who we delegate to keep law and order on our behalf fail to do the job then they shouldn't be able to squeal to loudly if we sack them and take back the responsibility ourselves.

I also believe that, to be effective, justice must be swift. Vigilanteism does that, whereas our legal system does exactly the opposite.


Spanki....

You think these people have jobs? No, they're mostly on the dole and we are paying for them anyway so what does it matter if they are subsequently economically inactive after punishment?

As for miscarriages of justice, I'm afraid you can't avoid them. The best you can hope for is to minimise them.

I wonder if any of you remember the case of the small-holder in Kilmarnock whose livestock all had their throats cut and his tool shed broken into countless times and the local plod said sorry can,t help you. ! The poor man at his wits end called upon his commando training and rigged a shotgun which went off if someone broke into his shed needless to say two youths tried to break in and one of them lost part of his hand. And our MAGNIFICENT courts sent the small-holder to jail for 7 years!!! The man should have received a medal instead he was sued by the two low-lifes. Personally I beleive the police are no longer effective in this country.And recently in the paper it said that people no longer respected the police respect has to be earned!! Whose next for the SOAP_BOX??