Self defence

[davereid]

The police have recently been asking for Tasers, and Firearms, quite rightly pointing out that they have the right to go home to their families every night, and that they face an increasing risk of assault and even being killed than they faced 20 years ago.

With 29 Policemen killed in the last 120 years they have a point.

But on Thursday, two Dairy owners were threatened by a man with a knife. They defended themselves, and threw him out, using their own, larger knife.

Entirely justifiable, even laudable given the number of dairy owners, taxi drivers, and normal kiwis going about their lawful business, who are attacked by thugs on a daily basis.



Whats the outcome ?

Detective Sergeant John Taylor advises us that the Dairy Owner may be in trouble himself !

Is it only policemen then, armed with stab proof vests, pepper spray, tasers, radios, and immediate backup who are entitled to go home to their families each night ?

[-df-]

Yeah, the whole thing is a joke if you ask me.

If someone tries to attack you, as far as I'm concerned you have every right to do as much as you deem necessary to stop them...if the attacker is injured, killed, well...guess that person should not have tried to attack you in the first place!!

"You call that a knife?!?!" lol

[-df-]

double post

[marty]

I'm sure the dairy owner was using the knife to cut some tomatoes up, and just happened to have it in his hand when the bad guy turned up. In that case, it's a simple self defence using an opportunistic defence weapon.

[bogan]

I think the vast majority would agree that self defense in such situations is fine, but where to draw the line between defense and offense. If a guy comes in brandishing a pocket knife, and gets stabbed in the back trying to run from the shop owners samurai sword or something, that probably counts as offense, though if mr pocket knife tries to stab mr samurai and looses a few fingers in the process then thats fine by me

[madbikeboy]

I like the eminant domain law in the US. In laymans terms, if someone breaks into your house, you can shoot them. If the body drops dead outside the front door, shoot them again, then drag the body into the house.

Under the criminal offenses act, if someone breaks into your house here in NZ, you can be charged with rudeness if you don't offer them a nice snack and a drink as well as all your possessions...

[jim.cox]

The police have recently been asking for Tasers, and Firearms, quite rightly pointing out that they have the right to go home to their families every night, and that they face an increasing risk of assault and even being killed than they faced 20 years ago.

With 29 Policemen killed in the last 120 years they have a point.

And how many bikers have been killed in the same period?

So wow come we dont get to use guns and tasers against the cagers, huh?

[CookMySock]

Is it only policemen then, armed with stab proof vests, pepper spray, tasers, radios, and immediate backup who are entitled to go home to their families each night ?

I think the issue is more like, ordinary citizens must come under the protection of the state - standing up for oneself is VERBOTEN!!(screaming)

The cops don't want people doing the fun part of their job.

Steve

[Ixion]

The concept of self defence , like that of accident prevention, has practically ceased to have relevance in our society. Many people make many pious protestations about them, but reality is that both are deprecated by authorities , the former by making any attempt to defend yourself illegal , the latter by the police condoning any driving behaviour at all except speeding and drink driving, no matter how dangerous.

Both approached are rooted in the philosophy that the same authorities prefer to pick up the pices after ward rather than prevent the problem in the first place.

In the case of road safety, they authorities have long given up any pretence of preventing crashes, and rely instead on an approach of trying to reduce speed , and apply more padding so that the crash (recognised as inevitable ) will be surviveable. Doesn't work for bikes of course

In the case of self defence , it is simply, for practical purposes, illegal. Police consider that the resulting crimes (assault, murder) are acceptable, so long as someone (preferably the actual perpetrator, but they're not too fussy) is convicted. Note that detective is regarded in the police as more prestigious (and, I think higher paid, though I'm open to correction on that) , than a uniformed officer of similar rank. Though in fact the very existence of detectives means that the police are admitting that they have failed in their primary purpose for existence

Having detectives means that crimes have been comitted. And their existence gives police a very good reason to want crime prevention to fail.

[-df-]

If a guy comes in brandishing a pocket knife, and gets stabbed in the back trying to run from the shop owners samurai sword or something, that probably counts as offense

Nah, guy is asking for trouble...and found it. Doesn't matter what the weapon is, the intent to commit the crime against that person was there...stab the bugger if you ask me.

I like the eminant domain law in the US.

If only we had that here.

[bogan]

Nah, guy is asking for trouble...and found it. Doesn't matter what the weapon is, the intent to commit the crime against that person was there...stab the bugger if you ask me.

yes, but the intent to murder was not, if the shop owner escalates an attempted (and failed) robbery to a murder, surely this is a bad thing?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yeah, the whole thing is a joke if you ask me.

If someone tries to attack you, as far as I'm concerned you have every right to do as much as you deem necessary to stop them...if the attacker is injured, killed, well...guess that person should not have tried to attack you in the first place!!

"You call that a knife?!?!" lol

and you'd be wrong. In law that is. Self defence is a pretty specific defence. Lots of case Lor on it too, if I recall.

[-df-]

yes, but the intent to murder was not, if the shop owner escalates an attempted (and failed) robbery to a murder, surely this is a bad thing?

At the time how do you know the persons intent? All you know is you have someone threatening you with a weapon...they have put themselves into that situation, and they will have to deal with the chance that person isn't going to let them get away with it...that could mean the innocent party has a gun within reach.

I'm sick and tired of people knowing they will get away with this sort of shit...so it just keeps going on.

If they thought they could get killed by robbing someone...bet a few less people would do it (well, after the first few died anyway)

[-df-]

and you'd be wrong. In law that is. Self defence is a pretty specific defence. Lots of case Lor on it too, if I recall.

I know by the law I'd be in the wrong...but quite frankly the law in this case is VERY wrong.

[bogan]

At the time how do you know the persons intent? All you know is you have someone threatening you with a weapon...they have put themselves into that situation, and they will have to deal with the chance that person isn't going to let them get away with it...that could mean the innocent party has a gun within reach.

I'm sick and tired of people knowing they will get away with this sort of shit...so it just keeps going on.

If they thought they could get killed by robbing someone...bet a few less people would do it (well, after the first few died anyway)

Well in my example it was clear cut, shop owner pulls out a sword and thiefy runs away, theres no intent to harm there. Though your last point is a good one, tougher penalties for criminals, dished out by the victims, some kind of balance in that.