Do you believe that we all have a right to defend our lives in our homes and in public places?
What do you think of laws introduced by the various governments of this country that limit the rights of individuals to defend themselves and their families from violent attacks?
Should we rely on society to defend us, or do you believe that there are as William Blackstone put it: "that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender."?
Is the right to defend our lives the most fundamental right of all, without which all other rights are useless?
2007-12-06
11:02:10
·
17 answers
·
asked by
Awoken
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry, just to make it clear I am from the UK and this question is regarding the situation in the UK!
2007-12-06
12:36:48 ·
update #1
Regarding the comments on 'reasonable force', we have seen in many court cases (too numerous to list here) that the definition of 'reasonable' chosen by courts has proven, as Glanville Williams put it in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that it is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law."
While I would try not to be offended by accusations that I am 'ill-informed', I have read extensively on this subject. This is a sensitive and unpleasant issue, but maybe we would find it easier to discuss if we try to abstract ourselves from emotion and discuss it in a more cool and rational manner.
Thanks for the contributions so far! I am not really looking for an absolute answer, I am just trying to gauge people's responses!
2007-12-07
03:08:28 ·
update #2
It's such a touchy issue at the moment.
Personally I believe that if I or any of my loved ones were being threatened with violence, I'd waste no time bashing in the attacker's head. And I'd stand very firmly for my right to do that.
However, the problem comes with the issue that is it right to then persue that person if they run away and then beat them to death? I don't really know what I'd do if that happened - I'd be so angry!
I think the law should certainly be far more lenient on people who attack their attackers. What are we supposed to do? Stand there and say "please don't hit me with that baseball bat"?
2007-12-06 11:10:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by eddieslucy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since the question is in UK Answers, I am guessing you are in the UK and talking about laws applicable here.
What laws do you have in mind that prevent defence against violent attack? My understanding is that a person can use 'reasonable force' to protect person and property. What that means in practice is for the courts to decide according to the facts of the case. Being prepared in advance to inflict serious damage on an intruder/mugger can weaken your defence which, as someone who has been burgled and attacked in the street, I think is ... regrettable. So, I cannot keep a weapon to hand but I can have something that can justifiably be kept to hand for some other legitimate reason that just happens to serve as an opportunistic weapon. If its use would be unreasonable or excessive in the circumstances then I may well commit an offence if I use it. There is talk of clarifying the right to defend though no politician is going to grant the right to maim. They will just tinker with the guidance given to the courts.
I agree that, without the right to the quiet enjoyment of life and property, any other rights become as useful as a one legged man in an *rse-kicking contest.
2007-12-06 11:51:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Thornberry 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Having trained in martial arts and really knowing what I'm doing, I think it would really be the right thing to do in avoiding any sort of confrontation involving myself. It's not a sympathy for the person wanting to hurt me nor is it a pigheadedness about my own skills, but the simple fact that I don't have to prove anything to anyone other than myself and I pretty much have done that already. I don't like to see things getting hurt, let alone innocent (or at least undeserved) people taking abuse for someone else's problems. Violence is something that really shouldn't be tolerated and I would want to do what I could to help someone if I was there and able. My mindset and ideals on this is pretty much a Watsuki Nobuhiro/Rurouni Kenshin kinda thing, and has even before I read it. I used to be somewhat of the bully type when I was young and personally know people who didn't stop progressing like I did. It's sad to me and I'd love to be the one to jar some since into people just like that, and if not at the time, later when they have to time to think about it. I think everything you said is *the* proper and correct mindset of martial arts. It's the difference between selfishness and selflessness. Anything with the "self" in mind is, for lack of a better word, evil. From crime to religious sin -- it all comes from a selfish place. Anything regarded as Godly, just or good is always without the self and not having put yourself first. No matter what it comes down to influence. Though I think everything you said is correct and the right way, it all comes down to how you live/lived, influences (parents/teachers/friends), religious view and up-bringing... basically what you choose your theology in life to be.
2016-04-07 22:26:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This question is pointless and ill-informed. In the UK we do have a right to self-defence. This includes a right to defend our person and property, including home, car, money, coat and cat. So long as you act reasonably in defending yourself/property there is no problem. Picking up a knife and stabbing a burglar is not reasonable, whatever you opinions on that is, shooting a burglar in the back with a shot gun is not reasonable, despite what Tony Martin may think.
The state of the UK law is fine, everybody including yourself and burglars have a fundamental right to life, a burglar (or another) entering your home impinges a property right of yours, this does not enable you to impinge his right to life.
If you are violently attacked in the streets you are well within your rights to do whatever you need to remove the threat, you can then fight him off and hold him down, temporarily knock him out, however it would not be reasonable to then, for example, beat his head in with a rock. Surely it is plain to see, as the bobby above me said there is a fine line between self-defence and an assault or worse, and the fine line is what is "reasonable". What is reasonable depends on the circumstances and is quite often enough to remove the threat.
Th state of the UK law on this issue is, for once, just about right.
Bruver
2007-12-06 22:36:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by bruverhoodofman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends. The devil is in the detail.
It depends on the nature of the perceived 'threat'.
Some issues are fairly clear (I would think to most people), such as the threat of lethal assault. Not only could it be reasonably classified as something against which self-defence is a right, but it is probably one of the most powerful instinctive characteristics of Human Beings, and most of the living world.
Bearing in mind that 'rights' are what we (Human Beings) give to ourselves (in that there are no 'rights' at the physical universe level). In this, 'rights' can vary depending on the attitude of the individual.
I would say that there is a 'right' to self-defense in certain circumstances.
It becomes a problem when the 'threat' is not so clear cut, or depends on the attitude of the individual. In addition, what kind of action(s) are considered part of that 'right' when it comes to any actions carried out in perfroming any self-defense?
It is more complicated by the fact that many/most? Human Beings respond first, think later, and in certain situations when under threat, there may not be time to 'consider' appropriate action.
When it comes to judging any actions, I can offer no generalisations which seem to me sound enough to be applied unconditionally, and so all such events would have to be judged on their particular circumstances.
Unless you are Jesus Christ or one of a remarkable few (I would think) who could entertain or carry out no self-defense in a potentially life threatening situation such as lethal assault by another Human Being(s).
However, this is a very important consideration and one that has a dramatic impact on individuals and societies, and should be taken both seriously, considerately and with truck loads of common sense. Simplistic standards here are potentially dangerous at worst, and undesirable at best.
2007-12-06 11:54:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by TheWizard 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
We do have the right to self defense and defense of our family. Where in the US do people not have that right? There are limitations of course, like you can't use deadly force if someone is just breaking into your car and only intending to steal stuff and not harm you. Then you are only allowed to use some force and possibly even to retreat and call the police. But if there is ever any imminent threat of grievous bodily injury to yourself or family you have the right to self defense or defense of others. Especially in your own home. In your own home every jurisdiction agrees that you have no duty to retreat.
EDIT: Just to clear the confusion, what country are you from? Someone mentioned UK. FYI: This question is posted in all English speaking places and not just in the UK if that's where you are from. I know the UK has different laws about this so if that's the case...I guess I can't answer this. I assume the thumbs down was supposed to somehow let Americans know that but that's kind of presumptuous.
2007-12-06 11:08:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Eisbär 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Yes, you are right. An Englishmans home used to be his castle and he could defend it, but in reality a number have been prosecuted for hurting burglars. The law is an *** overseen by donkeys (my apologies to the animals) However, that man sounded just a little too happy to go off and shoot those people.
2007-12-06 11:13:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Helen S 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
People do have the right to self defense or defense of a person, but not the right to defend property to the death.
In self defense you have to be the one that is targeted and harmed first. You can't clam self defense if you started the fight and then realized that you weren't as strong as the person that fought you.
In self defense if you fear for the life of yourself or others then you have the right to defend yourself. However if it is for fear of lose of property then you don't have that right. Silly I know, but people seem to value human life more then property.
In short if someone is wanting to rob you and take your money and not harm your person then you shouldn't kill the guy over the few dollars, or however much you have in your wallet.
But to answer your question, the right to defend our LIVES should be a fundamental right.
2007-12-06 11:15:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by well hello 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I believe everyone should have the right to defend himself, his family and his possessions. Unfortunately it now appears that the aggressor also has human rights and it is so easy to be prosecuted when all you are doing is defending your own rights.
2007-12-06 11:30:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You may want to do your research.
These 'powers' (self defence) apply to all individuals under common law and the human rights act.
There is however a VERY thin line between self defence and assault.
2007-12-06 12:13:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Ian UK 6
·
0⤊
0⤋