Britain: don't hit criminal twice
- Thread starter telomerase
- Start date
- Status
Antlurz
Member
I cannot, under any circumstances understand why they don't want people to protect themselves. That goes TOTALLY against all normal human instincts...
Ron
Ron
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for rebelling against the English and founding a republic.
longrifleman
Member
Antlurz, maybe this will help explain it.
.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Violence and the Social Contract
In the previous piece immediately below, "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can," I put forward the concepts of violent and predatory and violent but protective, and their antithesis, non-violence or passivity. I also noted that the pacifist culture in general holds a logical disconnect in that it still supports violence, so long as that violence is threatened or performed by duly authorized agents of the State.
I found this link at Rev. Sensing's that illustrates why that logical disconnect, that dichotomy, exists. It's a quote from Christian philosopher-ethicist Jacques Ellul:
Violence is to be found everywhere and at all times, even where people pretend that it does not exist. . . every state is founded on violence and cannot maintain itself save by and through violence. . . . Everywhere we turn we find society riddled with violence. Violence is its natural condition, as Thomas Hobbes saw clearly.
Pacifists reject Hobbes's belief that the natural state of man is one of conflict, but in general hold his belief that governments are formed to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. And how do they do that? Rev. Sensing:
Ellul disagrees with the classic distinction between violence and force: it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence. All states are established by violence. A government stays in power by violence or its threat and the threat is meaningless unless it can be and is employed.
The fact is that society depends on violence or its threat simply to exist. That's why there are police departments in every city. But there is no moral difference between the homeowner who protects his life or property with a gun and one who does not but summons a police officer. The police use violence or its threat to protect the law-abiding. The unarmed homeowner has merely "contracted out" his use of violence.
If using violence is sinful, the blunt reality is that there are no sin-free choices.
Note that critical point: "...it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence." And that is, in my opinion, an insidious form of self-deception, because it draws a moral difference between a citizen who defends himself, and one who does not but instead summons a police officer.
This is a recent philosophical change. When Sir Robert Peel formed London's Metropolitan Police Force - the first of its kind in London - he set down his Nine Principles of policing:
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Note Principle #7: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Now look back at Principle #1. The prevention of crime and disorder is incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence. But when a society, step by slow deliberate step, deceives itself into believing that there is a moral difference between defending oneself and one's community and "contracting it out" to the State, then that society will lose the majority of its defenders and risk descent into chaos. The converse is also true - when there is no reliance on the State, you risk anarchy as well,
Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians. Over-stimulate self-assertion, and for the arbitrament of the Courts you substitute the decision of the sword or the revolver. - The Law of the Constitution, by A.V. Dicey (MacMillan, London 1885).
(Quotation found at Samizdata. I recommend you read the whole piece.)
The concept of pacifism as it pertains to crime is generally predicated on the concept that all life is of value, and that using violence to injure or kill in defense of mere property is disproportionate - the value of the material is much less than the value of the life of the person attempting to take the material. Surprise! I concur. The life of a human being is of greater value than, say, the contents of my wallet. But this ignores something more important - the fact that the contents of my wallet are the least things at risk. Because someone willing to threaten bodily injury or death in order to take my wallet violates the tenets of the society in which both of us live. He puts in fear not only me, but the entire society. He has proffered a new social contract - "Give me what I want, and I won't hurt you."
The pacifist culture tells us that we should not resist, that we should call the authorities who are empowered to deal with social miscreants. At most, we should respond (as the British are required) proportionally. Yet a proportional response requires us, the defenders, to read the mind of the assailant. If he holds a knife, are we to ask "Do you actually intend to use the knife, and if so is your intent simply to wound or would you be intending a killing blow?" A proportional response requires the defender to reason cogently in a situation wherein our lives, or at least our health may be at risk. The advantage belongs to the attacker, and that is a recipe for social disaster.
To prevent that social disaster, the new social contract offered by the criminal should be understood by all parties to be: "Whatever it is I want, I have decided that it is worth risking my life for." And we, the potential victims, should be as dangerous as possible.
So long as a sufficient number of us are, the rest of society will enjoy the benefit of our protection. When there are too few of us, or when those of us who are willing to resist are restricted by law from doing so, there remain only two options: suffer the onslaught of criminals, or increase the police forces to overly burdensome levels. With the second option, assuming that a sufficient level is attained to reduce crime, the officers of the State required to accomplish that task will not then be reduced, they will be reassigned to other tasks, and a de facto police state will exist.
Those are the choices. It seems apparent which Britain has decided on
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com[/URL]
This guy is good. I check him out almost every day.
LR
.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Violence and the Social Contract
In the previous piece immediately below, "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can," I put forward the concepts of violent and predatory and violent but protective, and their antithesis, non-violence or passivity. I also noted that the pacifist culture in general holds a logical disconnect in that it still supports violence, so long as that violence is threatened or performed by duly authorized agents of the State.
I found this link at Rev. Sensing's that illustrates why that logical disconnect, that dichotomy, exists. It's a quote from Christian philosopher-ethicist Jacques Ellul:
Violence is to be found everywhere and at all times, even where people pretend that it does not exist. . . every state is founded on violence and cannot maintain itself save by and through violence. . . . Everywhere we turn we find society riddled with violence. Violence is its natural condition, as Thomas Hobbes saw clearly.
Pacifists reject Hobbes's belief that the natural state of man is one of conflict, but in general hold his belief that governments are formed to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. And how do they do that? Rev. Sensing:
Ellul disagrees with the classic distinction between violence and force: it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence. All states are established by violence. A government stays in power by violence or its threat and the threat is meaningless unless it can be and is employed.
The fact is that society depends on violence or its threat simply to exist. That's why there are police departments in every city. But there is no moral difference between the homeowner who protects his life or property with a gun and one who does not but summons a police officer. The police use violence or its threat to protect the law-abiding. The unarmed homeowner has merely "contracted out" his use of violence.
If using violence is sinful, the blunt reality is that there are no sin-free choices.
Note that critical point: "...it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence." And that is, in my opinion, an insidious form of self-deception, because it draws a moral difference between a citizen who defends himself, and one who does not but instead summons a police officer.
This is a recent philosophical change. When Sir Robert Peel formed London's Metropolitan Police Force - the first of its kind in London - he set down his Nine Principles of policing:
The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Note Principle #7: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Now look back at Principle #1. The prevention of crime and disorder is incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence. But when a society, step by slow deliberate step, deceives itself into believing that there is a moral difference between defending oneself and one's community and "contracting it out" to the State, then that society will lose the majority of its defenders and risk descent into chaos. The converse is also true - when there is no reliance on the State, you risk anarchy as well,
Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians. Over-stimulate self-assertion, and for the arbitrament of the Courts you substitute the decision of the sword or the revolver. - The Law of the Constitution, by A.V. Dicey (MacMillan, London 1885).
(Quotation found at Samizdata. I recommend you read the whole piece.)
The concept of pacifism as it pertains to crime is generally predicated on the concept that all life is of value, and that using violence to injure or kill in defense of mere property is disproportionate - the value of the material is much less than the value of the life of the person attempting to take the material. Surprise! I concur. The life of a human being is of greater value than, say, the contents of my wallet. But this ignores something more important - the fact that the contents of my wallet are the least things at risk. Because someone willing to threaten bodily injury or death in order to take my wallet violates the tenets of the society in which both of us live. He puts in fear not only me, but the entire society. He has proffered a new social contract - "Give me what I want, and I won't hurt you."
The pacifist culture tells us that we should not resist, that we should call the authorities who are empowered to deal with social miscreants. At most, we should respond (as the British are required) proportionally. Yet a proportional response requires us, the defenders, to read the mind of the assailant. If he holds a knife, are we to ask "Do you actually intend to use the knife, and if so is your intent simply to wound or would you be intending a killing blow?" A proportional response requires the defender to reason cogently in a situation wherein our lives, or at least our health may be at risk. The advantage belongs to the attacker, and that is a recipe for social disaster.
To prevent that social disaster, the new social contract offered by the criminal should be understood by all parties to be: "Whatever it is I want, I have decided that it is worth risking my life for." And we, the potential victims, should be as dangerous as possible.
So long as a sufficient number of us are, the rest of society will enjoy the benefit of our protection. When there are too few of us, or when those of us who are willing to resist are restricted by law from doing so, there remain only two options: suffer the onslaught of criminals, or increase the police forces to overly burdensome levels. With the second option, assuming that a sufficient level is attained to reduce crime, the officers of the State required to accomplish that task will not then be reduced, they will be reassigned to other tasks, and a de facto police state will exist.
Those are the choices. It seems apparent which Britain has decided on
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com[/URL]
This guy is good. I check him out almost every day.
LR
Antlurz
Member
Unfortunately, a proportional response, by it's very definition requires you NOT to "win" or to "defeat" your attacker, but merely to MATCH his moves. All the gobbledygook aside, What good is a Mexican standoff when your opponent may want to kill you?
Ron
Ron
It would be an interesting laboratory experiment to allow folks to pick up arms again and highly publicize it. I think the results would speak for themselves. Although, this is the real world an this is England we are talking about so it will never happen.
Greg
Greg
erbo_CO
Member
So what are you supposed to use against a bad guy in England? Harsh language?
Or will they nail you for that, too? Mustn't hurt the poor widdle robber's feelings, now...
I think England is pretty securely on my "must-miss" list at this point.
sturmruger
Member
After reading a story like that it makes Cali seem like Montana!! Those poor people are nothing but slaves of the Goverment. They are not allowed even the most basic right to protect themselves!!!! 
They are all so brainwashed that they are all proud of how little guns they have! I hope we never get that bad here in the US.
They are all so brainwashed that they are all proud of how little guns they have! I hope we never get that bad here in the US.
Antlurz
Member
..and probably run on three "D" cells.
Ron
CGofMP
Member
It only took the rest of us +-225 years to discover what John Adams and the rest of our forefathers knew.
Sadly we are too stupid to see that is exactly what we too are becoming.
With the restrictions, taxes, and usurpation of our own natural rights, it is my opinion that even the most English-Leaning Torry in the 13 states would be rolling in his grave wonderign why we do not throw off (if only by a simple bloodless election) the opression that we have incrementally shackled ourselves with.
Charles
RevDisk
Member
A while ago, a British gentleman meantioned "Americans are deeply, deeply suspicious of authority in general and government authority in particular in a manner and degree that people from other countries often find borderline pathological." (Direct quote, so funny I had to write it down.)
The responces from the Americans?
"Damn right!"
"Thanks for the compliment!"
"Yeppers!"
Mind you, the Brits today are decendents of people we fought (and killed) in order to be free of foreign occupation. Don't forget that.
The responces from the Americans?
"Damn right!"
"Thanks for the compliment!"
"Yeppers!"
Mind you, the Brits today are decendents of people we fought (and killed) in order to be free of foreign occupation. Don't forget that.
agricola
Member
yawn
murder, rape and serious assault (ie what would be a GBH/GBH W/I) are higher in the US than the UK, both in terms of numbers and rates.
British Police are not "routinely armed".
Killing assailants does not result in "a life sentence" - the three cases I suspect Malcolm refers to were clearly not done in self defence.
There is also no restriction on the right of self defence (aside from that the force used must be reasonable).
murder, rape and serious assault (ie what would be a GBH/GBH W/I) are higher in the US than the UK, both in terms of numbers and rates.
British Police are not "routinely armed".
Killing assailants does not result in "a life sentence" - the three cases I suspect Malcolm refers to were clearly not done in self defence.
There is also no restriction on the right of self defence (aside from that the force used must be reasonable).
atek3
Member
the tony martin case wasn't self defense?
atek3
atek3
agricola
Member
no, it wasnt.
he tried to claim self defence, but that was clearly nonsense (as the jury and the appeals court found).
he tried to claim self defence, but that was clearly nonsense (as the jury and the appeals court found).
La Pistoletta
Member
If he wouldn't have been attacked, he would never have defended himself. You ask for more and you get more. Too bad for the poor little criminal, he could've been given a warning, right?
agricola
Member
i) he didnt defend himself
ii) he wasnt attacked - his home was broken into
ii) he wasnt attacked - his home was broken into
The Martin case is a bad example all around. It really seems to polarise people, leading to accusations of 'you don't believe in self-defense' or 'you'd kill a man for a stereo?'
The reason it is a bad example is because it is an extreme. I'd be willing to bet that if Martin was an American there would be quite a few states who would have convicted under those circumstances. Whether or not he should have gone to jail is a different issue.
As Ag has pointed out, instances of self defense do happen here and people do not go to jail for them.
I worry about the inclination of some to believe the worst about Britain and criticise when not in possession of the full facts - does anyone remember the Manchester case recently? Try this thread for size - lot of people screaming about how the right to self-defence is denied Brits, then it turns out their 'hero' was a drug dealer who stabbed a man in the back in the street.
The reason it is a bad example is because it is an extreme. I'd be willing to bet that if Martin was an American there would be quite a few states who would have convicted under those circumstances. Whether or not he should have gone to jail is a different issue.
As Ag has pointed out, instances of self defense do happen here and people do not go to jail for them.
I worry about the inclination of some to believe the worst about Britain and criticise when not in possession of the full facts - does anyone remember the Manchester case recently? Try this thread for size - lot of people screaming about how the right to self-defence is denied Brits, then it turns out their 'hero' was a drug dealer who stabbed a man in the back in the street.
Antlurz
Member
Wow... talk about how the shoe fits on the wrong foot....
Britian might remember that when telling and explaining to us everything about our politics and the people we vote into office.
Ron
B
boofus
Guest
There is no crime in Britain. It is a lie of the American satans.
I have seen no violent criminals here.
All the criminals commit suicide in the countryside.
No one is a victim of crime here.
No restriction (!). You must mean other than the fact that you are not allowed access to even the most modest self-defense utilities.
A question: Say, for instance, I was a UK subject and I wanted to prepare myself for the possibility that I may be assaulted. I would like to take some steps to prepare for my own defense. What items and training would I have available to me that I could carry strictly for the purpose of exercising my 'right to defend myself' (which is repected and in full force in the UK, don't you know)?
- Gabe
agricola
Member
GRD,
Its a question you know the answer to:
public carriage of any weapon is forbidden here (though of course this does not apply in private, so in essence on private premises you could be as tooled up as you wish). firearms are covered separately, but you can still obtain shotguns and rifles if you wish, by showing good reason for having them (being a member of a gun club is "good reason").
if by "training" you mean the martial arts, then there are no restrictions to what training you could have, even weapons training, fighting with sticks etc.
even if you did carry a weapon in defiance of the law, then (despite its illegality) the use of it in self defence would not be "illegal" (ie: negating the self defence aspect).
as St Johns says, it is worrying the level of ignorance and bias that appears whenever the UK is mentioned here. As evidence (if any were needed), check these two threads:
sickening anti-gun media harm the cause by lies!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86238
heartening pro-gun media further the cause by lies!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86472
Its a question you know the answer to:
public carriage of any weapon is forbidden here (though of course this does not apply in private, so in essence on private premises you could be as tooled up as you wish). firearms are covered separately, but you can still obtain shotguns and rifles if you wish, by showing good reason for having them (being a member of a gun club is "good reason").
if by "training" you mean the martial arts, then there are no restrictions to what training you could have, even weapons training, fighting with sticks etc.
even if you did carry a weapon in defiance of the law, then (despite its illegality) the use of it in self defence would not be "illegal" (ie: negating the self defence aspect).
as St Johns says, it is worrying the level of ignorance and bias that appears whenever the UK is mentioned here. As evidence (if any were needed), check these two threads:
sickening anti-gun media harm the cause by lies!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86238
heartening pro-gun media further the cause by lies!
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86472
- Status