Fight or Flight

[Shuckins]

Those are the two long-standing, traditional responses by human beings to perceived threats.

As far as I'm concerned, the two are instinctive...nature's keys to survival of not only individuals but of species as well.

Disturbingly, modern man appears to be abandoning and debunking the "fight" option.  There have been numerous references in threads on these boards referring to the British court's attitudes about the private citizen's use of force, specifically deadly force, in defence of hearth and home.

The law there states, in effect, that flight is the only viable option for a citizen threatened with violence by intruders in their homes.  

But what if flight is not an option?  What if the home-owner is trapped with their residence, and flight cannot be effected?  

Evidently, fight, even under such circumstances, is not an option unless the home-owner fights with nothing more than his bare fists.

This attitude by a government makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.  

As I said, a disturbing trend, found not just in Britain, but in many other nations.  

What do you think the future holds?

Regards, Shuckins

[lazs2]

teach your kids that it is all BS and show them what it is to be a man and everything will be allright.

Either my generation will die out and be replaced by metrosexuals or... the new generation will revolt against all the nanny rules.

I see evidence all the time... the youngest generation is looking at the rules that don't allow personal freedom or the right to defend yourself and calling BS.

It is the middle generation... the half bald pony tail wearers in their late 30's and 40's who are the real wusses...

Hopefully they won't win out.

I listen to national public radio...  it is so far left it would gag ya...  they do their very best to get a really old man... or a woman or a brit to do their stories... best for them is a brit woman.

lazs

[Goth]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Those are the two long-standing, traditional responses by human beings to perceived threats.

As far as I'm concerned, the two are instinctive...nature's keys to survival of not only individuals but of species as well.
 

What do you think the future holds?

Regards, Shuckins

While I have forgotten my formal education (Psych 1001) on this matter, my feelings are that it is not instictual, but learned. If it is instinctual, then man by nature is a violent beast. And if by nature we are violent beasts then I also have to believe that eventually we're doomed.

However, as a soldier, you are trained to fight, and that training for many becomes instinctual and hence the propensity fight even for those who would have let flight take over before training.

What does the future hold? I believe the future ebbs and flows. Today we're a more docile world, tomorrow we're violent murdering beasts.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Goth

 tomorrow we're violent murdering beasts.

so someone who defends their own life is a "violent murdering beast"?


if i am attacked , i will pull my 38, you can lay on the ground and say"please don't hurt me".

[Trikky]

Hate to let facts get in the way of a good eurosocialist lynching but ...

Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.

What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:
having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service UK website here http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

[lazs2]

but... you still can't shoot him can you?  that law is worthless to the old and infirm and the weaker sex.

Truth be told... most of you reading this would not be able to stop a real criminal intent on robbery or worse with your bare hands..... he would likely beat you to death while you were talking at him.

lazs

[Tarmac]

It's all a part of their master plan to pussify us.  Its pervasive in everything from our public schools to regulating every aspect of our lives into the ground to the tax on us when we die... ya know, so our heirs will be "more equal."  

Then we can be productive members of society; equally, peacefully contributing to the economy... and be totally safe.  We will all be equal.  Ya know, for our own good.  

[Goth]

Originally posted by john9001
so someone who defends their own life is a "violent murdering beast"?


if i am attacked , i will pull my 38, you can lay on the ground and say"please don't hurt me".

Maybe my choice of words were a bit strong, and I am by no means a pacifist. Yet, I do have to stand behind the principal of what I said and in this instance killing someone with your .38 would indicate violence.

Violence to me has always been a result of unleashing of forces which are more familiarly equated with beast-like habits. Didn't mean to insult anyone.

[lazs2]

goth.. I do not know if you are aware but there are dangerous sociopaths out there.   The ONLY way to stop them is violence in a timely manner... if you hesitate... if you think about it.... you are lost.

You can mostly avoid these people and you probly have... but there is no guarentee... they will hit you with everything they got and so fast that you won't even see it coming.

lazs

[Trikky]

Originally posted by lazs2
but... you still can't shoot him can you?  that law is worthless to the old and infirm and the weaker sex.

Truth be told... most of you reading this would not be able to stop a real criminal intent on robbery or worse with your bare hands..... he would likely beat you to death while you were talking at him.

lazs

Barmaid shot intruders with a shotgun, does that count? As for the old and infirm, yeah I guess they're screwed. I'm just pointing out that people can use force, and weapons, against burglars in the UK and remain within the law.

Householder/other victim not prosecuted

Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The CPS did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years (Greater Manchester);

A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence (Derbyshire);

Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted (Hertfordshire);

Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted (Lincolnshire);

A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute (Lancashire).

Taken from here http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/2005/106_05.html

[lazs2]

you are again... pointing out the inequity of your laws.... the barmaid did not have a firearm... if it had happened at her home she would have been dead meat.

the other examples are of strong young men getting the best of another strong man.... it coulda gone either way.

The fact that more than 50% of your burglaries happen when the people are home points out that the burglars are not afraid of your cricket paddles and sharp tongues.

lazs

[john9001]

you did not insult me.

[icemaw]

only use a gun if you have to it wakes up the nabors and they call the cops. i have several very large and very sharp knives. a bit messy but if the cops are not coming who cares. of coarse gun or knive or bat or whatever. ts all in the desposal of the body afterwards. as long as the nabors havent called the cops cause you shot your 12 gage 4 times at 4am.

  silent deadly steathy acid bath no problem.

[straffo]

Originally posted by lazs2
The fact that more than 50% of your burglaries happen when the people are home points out that the burglars are not afraid of your cricket paddles and sharp tongues.

lazs

Or it can proove the UK burglar have a low IQ.


I'm tired of your biased interpretations.

[FUNKED1]

I think the future holds no weapons of any sort as long as sheeple keep electing governments that continually erode constitutional rights.  So many people are willing to just piss away their rights in exchange for government promises of safety. Look at all the guys on this very forum defending domestic spying with no warrant.  Frog, pot, hot water, etc.