board77

I am not restructuring your argument. I am examining the true structure of your argument, and stating what I see.

I did not bring in the example of breaking back in to get a stereo. You did. That is an example of vigiliantism. I haven't twisted it to make it an example of vigiliantism --- it just is! Only you know why you brought in an example of vigilantism in an argument about the limits of self-defense.

You make reference to an "eye for an eye" mentality in your previous post. But that relates to punishment for a crime already committed, when what we are talking about is prevention of a crime about to be committed. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Again, the is the structure I see in your argument --- making appeals to examples or principles that have nothing actually to do with the question of what is allowable in self-defense.

I have no idea what you are attempting to do, Alatar. I doubt you are being deliberately dishonenst or manipulative in your arguments. But some of the arguments you put forth are indeed intellectually dishonest. That's just what I see, and I'm not going to shy away from saying it. I loath intellecutally dishonest arguments. I'm aware I'm not perfect in this either, but I'm willing to listen to criticism.

If you find it insulting, stop mischaracterizing the nature of self-defense. I find that very insulting, to all the people who have had to defend their lives with deadly force.

eborr - I work very close to Fourways Mall! For Faramond's info, the mall me and my collegue were at when we had the hunt for merchandise was Fourways Mall.

But also, I have lived here my life, and never had one close call due to a gun owner's carelessness. Those incidents are pretty rare. Also, it is relatively common knowledge to not mess about with Taxi drivers. If you get yourself in shit by threatening, dumb behaviour, you should expect to have to dodge what the fan throws off, I guess

I'd say two of those incidents were caused by the associate maybe being a bit gung-ho about guns. Which is part of the point I make, some people just shouldn't have them. But now the asshole-ness of some people takes away the protection of the responsible as well? That is a tough one.

Alatar - *I* was talking about the right to defend myself, not the right to "kill someone if I feel threatened". I for one can't harm someone just because I feel threatened! That is an evil thing to say of someone. No, I was talking about being forced to harm someone before they harm me. And I don't imagine shooting someone point blank. Shooting them in the leg maybe to slow them down. I don't know. I actually don't imagine shooting people at all.

Quote:

I have a huge problem with laws that allow an individual to take anothers life because they felt threatened. That is lawlessness.

Yes. It is lawlessness. Lawlessness to threaten MY life. And now the criminal gets his right to life protected but I must give mine up? That is exactly the sort of argument that makes my blood BOIL. And I'm not talking about simple theft. Or being threatened. I'm talking about a potential murderer in my house, a murderer coming for me. Why would he come for me if he doesn't mean me harm? I want to be able to prevent him from harming me.

But, such law restrictions allows that CRIMINAL to be my judge, juror and executioner, Alatar. Do you realize that? If I can't use deadly force to protect myself, and that criminal has access to it ( which he will have, being male and me being female, his superior strength CAN BE deadly force ) then that criminal is allowed to be my judge, juror and excutioner, isn't he?

Quote:

The simple cold fact is that nobody should have the legal right to end anothers life. When that happens it is a failing of law enforcement.

It is cold comfort when a family member is murdered to say law enforcement failed. A society where law enforcement is failing, fails to protect its members if it takes away their right to protection. Why the hell must a criminal's right to life be valued over my own? That criminal doesn't have the legal right to end my life but does that law stop him? Stop his bullet? His knife? His hands? No, it doesn't. A weapon may. Why must I yield to that? Life is precious to me. I won't give it up without a fight - who has the right to put me under a law requiring me to override my basic instinct to stay alive?

Quote:

If my family was threatened I may very well attempt to kill the intruder, but I don't expect to have the legal right to do so. That is the crux of the matter.

I will respect your principled stance. But if my husband harms to protect me, in a hypothetical situation, and gets jailed for life due to it, that makes him as good as dead to me. He's not in my life anymore in any case.

I still don't see why a criminal gets the "right" to kill, and the victim doesn't. Remember, as long as that criminal doesn't get caught, he has the "right" to kill. A law enforcement that allows that criminal into my house already failed to protect me once. Now, because I may not use deadly force to protect myself, it fails to protect me again. That is not useful law enforcement. As Faramond said, law enforcement is usually reactive. As such it cannot protect lives from being torn apart.

I shared my experience but not my opinion.

There is no moral problem in my mind with acting in self-defence.

If somebody acted to protect their family from being harmed, I would expect any reasonable law to defend them, not lock them up.

And anyone who enters somebody else's house with intent to burgle or harm the occupants has, IMO, forfeited their rights.

I remember why I left Manwe now.

I don't like my recent posts, so I'm bowing out of this thread.

While I still disagree with your arguements, Alatar, I am very sorry I called you intellectually dishonest.

What I should have done is tried to understand your arguments, your point of view, instead of just shredding it. I know what I think, and I know I disagreee with some of what you say --- but I still don't know what you think, not really. Oh well. I won't make this mistake again, I hope.




And great post, Griff.

Di wrote:

I'll tell you something: you do not argue with somebody with a knife. Ever. I was pissed at losing my bag, but I was far more afraid of losing my life.

I hate to hear stories of attacks like that. Still, I happen to be a martial artist of the old style who believes that surrender is not an option, so in such I case I would try to escape and if that failed I’d have to ‘argue’.

What I should add is that I don't buy into any warrior-hero ideals, simply that I wouldn't trust a knife-waving maniac to be happy with simply taking my wallet. Many a person has found themselves writhing in a pool of blood not being able to understand that accepting an attacker's demands is no assurance that they won't hurt them.

I'm glad that that didn't happen in your case.

Faramond, please don't leave the thread. Your posts have made me challenge my preconceptions and have forced my hand on a few issues. I only had a problem with your characterisation of my arguments as dishonest, not your rebuttal of them.

I now realise that I have backed myself into a corner of defending something I don't really believe and that was never a part of my original opinion. I will state now that I do support the use of deadly force in self-defense in a life threatening situation. What I do not support is the use of deadly force to protect property. My problem with the law that had recently passed was that it seemed to allow use of deadly force at the home owners discretion, namely that one could legitimately and with full support of the law, kill someone for stealing a television. I have a huge problem with that.

The example that Faramond described as a vigilante one was a bad example and I retract it. I am not trying to define self-defense as vigilanteism and if I gave that impression I apologise.

Griff, in the situation you describe I would fully support your right to defend yourself. The situation that I have a problem with is the one that seems to be supported under the amendment quoted earlier, namely that you see someone in your sitting room, have the ability to retreat to safety but instead choose to use deadly force.

I hope that is more clear and I apologise for any misunderstandings.

Alatar

Griff, I respect your choice to not have a gun in the house. I am with Prim that guns bring more tragedy to the innocent than the guilty. Either you have them loaded and handy with the risks that everyone has said or you have them safe and useless. The risks seem to outweigh the benefits. But what to do in a lawless society with firearms prevalent? I'm afraid the USA has got itself into this pickle and I don't have a solution but the principle of when you've got yourself into a hole it is a good idea to stop digging deeper seems relevant.
You say that you have swords at home. As a skilled fencer with Japanese katanas and other swords at home I would say they were useless. I could kill someone with any blade but I can hardly conceive the circumstances that I could do that to an intruder. They are also very clumsy in a confined space as is a baseball bat. The tool of choice I would use in any desperate conflict and would recommend to a woman is a kitchen knife sharpening steel, basically a cosh. Small, easily carried, a good grip, tapering and smooth so hard to pull out of your hand, easily concealed, painful and disabling but hardly lethal. A sweep across the teeth, smacks on the fingers or wrist to disable the power of any grip, blows to the ears and nose to disorientate, blows to the elbows and knee caps. Strength is not needed for disabling force. All this is very grisly and I am not a violent person but thinking beforehand clarifies the mind, prepares it and reduces panic. If you can, running away is better. Good locks and alarms are too.

Tosh - that's exactly what I meant - I have swords in my home and in the hand of a skilled person they might be useful. In the hand of the unskilled, not. I was reacting to the fantasy some people have that you can defend yourself against intruders with a blade, basically saying that that idea is a bunch of rubbish.

What you say about lack of space is also very true. In fact, in confined space you need a small weapon. I would never even think of grabbing one of my swords to try and defend myself. But neither would I be able to defend myself with physical power and a weapon against any man, not even like you describe. I am simply not strong enough, not skilled enough and not quick enough to deal blows.

I would always prefer running if I can, unless another person is in danger, in which case I would not run. The thing with good locks is that you close off your own escape routes if a burglar does manage to gain entry - for example by surprising you as you open the door and forcing you into your house.

I am no self defence expert. There are others on this board who know more on this subject but I believe it is the speed, unexpectedness and ferocity of an attack, not its forcefulness that decides its outcome. In a contest of strength you would be at a disadvantage, in a contest of aggression the result is not so clear. Go to classes, what you will learn will empower you.
BTW, as I type I am finishing off the kudu and sipping some Rooibos
The smell of the Rooibos is just like sticking your head into a beehive without the inconvenience of the bees.

Swords have a high intimidation value, but aren’t very effective in the hands of an unskilled person. Even fairly simple things like cutting through rolls of straw take practice. As was pointed out above, they are difficult to use indoors. I’d like to own swords, but not for the self-defence value.

Alatar wrote:

What I do not support is the use of deadly force to protect property. My problem with the law that had recently passed was that it seemed to allow use of deadly force at the home owners discretion, namely that one could legitimately and with full support of the law, kill someone for stealing a television. I have a huge problem with that.

Well, I look at it this way. Most people won’t kill someone to save their TV, so I have a hard time seeing the law causing a massacre of petty criminals. That being said, the few that are killed should help to deter many, many others. In such cases, I do believe that saving the TV is the ultimate objective, although whether I have no idea whether I, personally, would be willing to kill someone to save my property.

Griffon64 wrote:

eborr - I work very close to Fourways Mall! For Faramond's info, the mall me and my collegue were at when we had the hunt for merchandise was Fourways Mall.

Small world I used to work in Rivonia, close to the N1 highway, our opticians was for some reason in Fourways.

eborr - my goodness. So you took Rivonia road probably? I take William Nicol, and my office park is RIGHT NEXT to the highway, just off William Nicol. TIIIIIIIIINY little world! How long were you in South Africa?

We lived in Jo'burg from March 1994 thru to Christmas 1996 and then on to Gabs, through to March 1998 my office base was at Homestead park, which is just inside the N1 ring, I still exchange the occasional Email with people there, and in fact I am going to see one of my expat friends from those days, sometimes this week

Cool! Of course, 1994 thru 1998 South Africa was a bit more in upheaval than it is now. If I remember right, the Taxi wars were still more violent then, too. Nowadays it is mostly under control in Gauteng, though the Cape Flats had killings again just the other day.

don't remember too much about the Taxi wars, we had a colleague who lived in Khatlehong, after working late one night offered her a lift home, as we got near to the place, she asked me to stop and let her out, I offered to go nearer her place, but she said not to, "The Taxi's even will not go in there"

Khatlehong used to be a lot more dangerous than I gather it is now, too. Definitely not someplace you should just drive into at night, though. I haven't yet heard about Taxi's not wanting to drive into the townships, though. But again, it depends on territory and such - don't go where you shouldn't, and you should be fine, kind of thing in that case.

I take it back. Sounds like you should all be toting Submachine guns. Just how dangerous is South Africa?

Alatar

Alatar - SA is fine for living in, really. You just have to be careful, and isn't that the truth everywhere? Don't walk about at night unless it is a safe suburb ( I won't walk in my suburb at night since I live next to a small preserve where bums sleep at night but I will do so in the suburb my parents live in ) keep your doors locked ( car and house, you can open the door but keep the Trellidoor closed and locked ), check around you for suspicious-looking people, at night while waiting for the automatic gate to open, park in such a way that you can get away if there's trouble. Don't be agressive, don't evoke people, kind of thing.

I suggest you ask Faramond what he thought of South Africa in 5 weeks' time ... that is sure to be a better description than any I can give!

I think Faramond may be slightly biased when he's there :-)

my experience is that SA was no more dangerous than many places, you have to be sensible though, the scariest place by a long way that I have travelled to/worked in was Belfast during the troubles, where an English accent could get you into a very difficult situation. I went out a few times in Central Jo'burg which was a little hairy then - don't know what it's like now, but in the suburb where I lived , Parkview we generally had no problems.

Mosside is approximately 10 miles from home, and I wouldn't go out on the streets there after dark