tl;dr = Harming someone to the point where you are charged for violence when, in reality, you were saving yourself.

A lot of people are against it. Personally, I'm for it. But if any of you are against saving yourself, I'd like to hear things from your point of view.

STORY; (Which might be a little incorrect. Sorry. It was a long time ago.)

I forget who told me this, but there was once a man who came home from work only to see his family (family = wife and children) tied up. The robbers were armed and threatened him to do as they say, and there will come no harm. Instead of acting like a wuss and agreeing because he was scared (because hell, that's what I'd do) he attacked them to the point where the villains evacuated the home and began to run away.

But the husband wasn't done, no. He hunted them down and seriously injured them. I'm not sure if any of the robbers were murdered, but I think not.

Anyways, the husband was later charged with abuse and whatnot. I find it ridiculous, because not only did he save his life, but his family's. Maybe he saved future victims that the robbers would've attacked after. I don't think he should've been charged at all.

He was in his every right to protect his home and family, but
Once the robbers had run away the man should have contacted the police and tended to his family.
It was no longer self defense but revenge.
Police are there for a reason. He basically took the law into his own hands

I agree with disturbed. Once the robbers were running away, they were no longer a threat and thus attacking them further would no longer be considered self defense. On top of that, I think any time somebody somebody considers self defense, there are a couple things to consider:

1-Is fighting going to put myself/victims in further danger? The idea of self defense isn't to cause more danger and harm in order to get rid of the immediate threat. Of course, there is already risk involved when trying to fight somebody off, but if you're only going to be putting yourself and others in a life-threatening situation when it might not have been so life-threatening, you may wish to reconsider. The point of self-defense is to get rid of the threat, not create a new one.

2-What are the consequences for my actions? Especially in this day and age, where everyone sues everybody else for any reason they can think up, it's important to remember that every action has a consequence. Sometimes, yes. Acting out of self defense will end up with you in court. This is because, again, acting out of self defense is supposed to simply get rid of the threat. Once the threat is gone, you should call the police. Obviously, this isn't always the case and sometimes there are plenty good reasons. So, it's really up to you to decide if that's the course you think is best.

Personally, I believe self defense to be perfectly reasonable. Especially as a young woman heading off to a college in an unfamiliar state. Or..just as a young female in general. I've always believed that being able to fight back is important, because sometimes being able to fight back WILL get rid of the threat. Other times, it will increase it and you just have to try to be cautious enough to figure out when you should fight and when you should run. I'd take a court charge over not saving my family's lives any day, though.

As Disturbed said, he wasn't protecting his family at that point, he was getting revenge. And the law does not (aside from the death penalty) and should not support revenge. I'm glad he was charged.

As for my feelings about self-defense, I'm sort of iffy. I do not support violence whatsoever, and I realized a very long time ago that if I were in a situation where the only two choices were harming my attacker and letting myself be harmed, I'd just have to let myself die because I couldn't hurt someone else. In the vast majority of cases like the one you mention, "defending yourself" means going along with their demands and not doing anything violent at all. For the most part, if someone has you in a position where they could harm/kill you if they wanted and they told you that they wouldn't so long as you cooperated, they mean that. They do not want to hurt you. Actually, his actions did little besides put himself and his family in more danger. There's a reason store clerks and bank tellers are told to give in to a robber's demands without fighting, and it's not the robber's safety they're worried about.

Now, if it was in defense of others, I probably could -- my own moral hangups cannot justify letting someone come to harm when I could have stopped it. To me, inaction is the same as action when it causes someone to be hurt, though I don't view one person endangering another as a blank check to commit assault, and violence should be an absolute last resort. Of course, that doesn't really count as self-defense, so 8D

Self defense only works to the point where you are defending yourself, or yours. Once the man went after them, the robbers had every right to defend themselves.

Hey did you hear about the man who shot a burglar, the burglar sued and won! That's why if you brake into my house you'll die there, I kid you not. Anyway that's bull****, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by disturbed66

He was in his every right to protect his home and family, but
Once the robbers had run away the man should have contacted the police and tended to his family.
It was no longer self defense but revenge.
Police are there for a reason. He basically took the law into his own hands

This is absolutely true. It's one thing to protect your family. It's quite another to take justice into your own hands. It's true that if the robbers were caught and killed they wouldn't have the chance to do it again, but the fact is that our justice system exists so that any punishment outside of immediate need (with no unnecessary force) is taken care of. It keeps bad guys from killing people and calling it self defense.
The system isn't perfect, but a lot of the time it makes sense.

At first it was self defense but then.... then it was just evil. Like disturbed said he should've contacted the police.

Originally Posted by kattsyn

Hey did you hear about the man who shot a burglar, the burglar sued and won! That's why if you brake into my house you'll die there, I kid you not. Anyway that's bull****, pure and simple.

Yes, the system is messed up.
There was also a guy who tried to break into someones house through the chimney, cracked his neck, sued, and won.

I believe in self defense.
But chasing them down was not self defense, and I think it was quite stupid to do.

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

Yes, the system is messed up.
There was also a guy who tried to break into someones house through the chimney, cracked his neck, sued, and won.

I have also heard that story. Gotta love the Justice System. :roll:

Would either of you happen to have a source for that story? As it sounds very much like one of the ones on that chain email pretty much everyone has gotten at this point, none of which are true: snopes.com: Stella Awards

And really, this is far better than the alternative, which is to simply say that once you break the law, you are no longer protected by it. Even if you believe that criminals shouldn't have any rights, it's not too difficult to see how such a mentality could cause problems for the average law-abiding citizen -- being accused of a crime means that anyone can do anything they want to you, and so long as they find a way to justify it (however shaky), there's nothing you can do.

It was more of a word of mouth-thing for me. But cmon, you don't just need THAT story to know that the justice system can be very f***** up sometimes.

Well, no, but there's a point in me asking. Quite a few people hold your opinion -- that innocent people get sued over nothing all the time and lose (and that part is very important; legally, anyone can sue anyone over anything, they have that right, it's simply a matter of whether or not they win) -- based entirely on false stories like that. I mean, how many completely baseless lawsuits are filed every year, and the plaintiff wins? Not many, I'd reckon. Most of the ones you hear about have either been completely warped by the media or by the defendant (such as the infamous McDonald's coffee case) or aren't real. We're spending all our time focusing on a problem that isn't a fraction of what we've made it out to be.

I see what you mean. It was so long ago that I heard it, so I couldn't tell you. It wouldn't really help you if I did know because it was word of mouth, anyways. I wouldn't know the true origin of that story. ^^;

I think that the man shouldn't have chased after the robbers after they left his home. In a way it was just getting back at them and some men are really stubborn and persistant....which is what I think that man was. He was persistant and perhaps wanted to make sure that they wouldn't come back?

That doesn't make it right though. I believe that the man that attacked them so that they would leave was the right thing to do, because face it, if someone hits you, you're going to hit them back, right?

It can be compared to this situation. In order for the robbers to tie up the wife & kids, there had to be some form of attack and fighting, correct? Assuming there is. Not to the point where anyone was hurt per se, but there was a struggle I assume. So, the man hit them back in order to both protect his wife & kids and be the man of the house and protect his family at all costs (:

But, to chase after them was pure unnecessary violence and crude :I He should've called dispatch (the police) immediately and got them to get fingerprints or search for small DNA traces like locks of hair or fingerprints on the duct tape they might have used, or blood from a minor cut or scratch from the robbers. They would've been caught.

But instead he chose to be outright violent, which was wrong.

So, to sum it all up, chasing them away = good.
Chasing after them? Bad.

I hear it on the news all the time.
Someone breaks into a house, grabs a load, and on the way out the home owner shoots them or whatnot, and the home owner is charged with assault or attempted murder and the theif comes out with the winnings of a bs lawsuit.

Two examples from the news I remember over the years.
Man breaks in, steals a TV, and is shot on his way down the stairs. He won like, $45k to pay his medical bills and other injuries, and the home owner was charged with assault.

Another thief fell through a skylight and injured himself trying to rob an old lady. She had to pay for his medical bills and "suffering".

The justice system is ridiculously flawed in America. I'm sure it's as messed up everywhere else as well.

Originally Posted by Kleine Robotik

I hear it on the news all the time.
Someone breaks into a house, grabs a load, and on the way out the home owner shoots them or whatnot, and the home owner is charged with assault or attempted murder and the theif comes out with the winnings of a bs lawsuit.

Two examples from the news I remember over the years.
Man breaks in, steals a TV, and is shot on his way down the stairs. He won like, $45k to pay his medical bills and other injuries, and the home owner was charged with assault.

Another thief fell through a skylight and injured himself trying to rob an old lady. She had to pay for his medical bills and "suffering".

The justice system is ridiculously flawed in America. I'm sure it's as messed up everywhere else as well.

Sources, please. Your hearsay does not count as "news," so I (as well as several other debaters, I'm sure), would like to see the links to original news stories.

Thanks.

It is one thing to protect yourself and your family. It is another thing to want to cause harm to other people and take revenge. By chasing the robbers the man could have gotten himself killed or otherwise put himself in danger. There is no reason for someone to try to injure or kill someone without themselves being in danger. It's a public safety thing. Not saying that I wouldn't be tempted to beat the robbers senseless but just saying it's not the right way to go about things.

I heard my story through a youtube story about a few years ago. My friend brought up the story again the day I posted up this thread. So I guess my sources were a few foggy memories and word of mouth.

But that's not the point, the story that I posted. I guess I shouldn't have posted it to begin with, because it led people away from what I wanted people to focus on.

The point being the messed up sense of justice, and how sometimes "It was either kill or be killed" doesn't always work.

----------

Basically saying that hurting someone through self-defense is hard to do nowadays D;

Originally Posted by Lapin

[/COLOR]Basically saying that hurting someone through self-defense is hard to do nowadays D;

Except that your story, and all these other anecdotal, probably false stories are used as evidence of this basic idea. If all the stories you can think of to prove your point are small cases no one else has ever heard of and which can't be verified, then I'd say there isn't really a problem. I mean, people still get away with murder by claiming "self-defense", so if there's a problem then it's probably on the other side.

And if you were correct, then good. People shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want to other people and claim "self-defense". As I said in my original post, protecting oneself in situations like that more often than not means playing it cool, going along with the robber's demands (within reason, of course), and not doing anything violent. Again, this isn't always the case, but often, doing anything violent at all, whether it means planting traps for would-be burglars or beating a robber half to death, actually puts you and yours in more danger. It's far from self-defense, and it shouldn't be treated as such.

I believe that the law on self defence is that the second they begin to run away, you can't touch them. My ethics teacher told me about a man who went to prison for shooting a robber... the crux was that he fired the shot from behind, while he was already leaving.

The justice system CAN be fucked up, like in cases where the burglar hurts himself in the home and ends up suing the family he burgled. However, in cases like the one originally cited up there, I think the law is quite right. An act of vengeance is NOT self defence. Not only that, but leaving his family to chase down a couple of potentially dangerous criminals was very irresponsible and risky on a number of levels.

The current system doesn't like vigilante justice. Everyone knows it, so why do people still think they can do it and get away?

----------

Oh, but I'd also like to say that it seems an awful lot easier to sue people, and to sue people for a LOT of money, over the pond in America. Damn, now I wish I was keeping my message history on this computer, because just yesterday I read about a man suing someone for over $1m and messaged my friend about it. Over here he'd be lucky to get a few thousand at most. I don't know why it's like this, but it is.

Its one thing to protect your family, its an entirely different situation when you go out and take the trouble to actually hunt the robbers down and attack them. It just gets disturbed at that point. Is that seriously what the man was like? I'm worried for his family...