Safe Speed Forums

I wouldn't count it as pre-emptive if the assailant was threatening me with a weapon.



That was bad example but given that it was a foreign driver he might not understand me. My concern is that I don't want "shoot first, questions later" to become acceptable. Too many innocents get hurt that way. But I do sympathise with the idea that some one perpetrating a criminal act, whether it be armed robbery or exceeding the posted speed limit, should be out-with the protection of the law.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Define threatening and weapon, a newspaper can be an effective weapon in the right hands. The subject is at least as complex as the speed camera issue and the ethics of self defence were a common topic of discussion after training sessions.



Again moral issues around the definitions of what constitutes a criminal act abound, what about stealing a loaf of bread for instance? Would a security guard be justified using lethal force against a shop lifter under your rules? For speeding as an example you could say that someone exceeding the speed limit would be assumed to be liable for any incident that occurs, though they would not be automatically be prosecuted for exceeding it if no incident occurs. If the speed limit is set at something just over the 90th percentile then speeding would not be particularly common anyway.

While it is tempting to agree, after all a burglar deserves what they get don't they? It would be scarily easy to end up on the wrong side of the law, particularly if you find that complaining about the law becomes illegal in itself.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Just to clarify on the armed forces response - kill or maim is the example often used, not worry about will I get prosecuted if I ensure that I am safe at the risk of hurting / killing my attacker?

It worries me that in terms of self defence as a civilian I'm seeing lots of reports of the law abiding being attacked / burgled / robbed at knife point and if they defend themselves they end up on the end of an assualt charge - the priorities seeming to be:

A. Protection of the law breaker over the law abiding.

B. An easier nick than trying to prosecute for the original offence.

IMO fundementally wrong. As I said in my previous post why not have a 'knowing acceptence of the risk' principle applied to self defence cases?

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk