Notes On Part 4Protection of private property Comment
I doubt that it is possible to calculate a reasonable level of defense when your home and family are under attack. Some invaders are likely to be on drugs making them more dangerous with more on their minds than just bullying and taking property. Therefore it is better to have clarity and allow the home, property or business owner all the tools they need to defend themselves. Anything less jeopardizes their safety.
Comment
Are you saying it should be legal for citizens to kill a trespasser, if they are 'reasonably supposed' to be committing a crime on their property? We are not America. Ideally, you should use the minimum level of force that you deem necessary, with the knowledge that police will allow you some leeway, since you are obviously in a very stressful situation.
Response
What criteria would you suggest for people assessing reasonable force vs. risk when a gang of P enraged home invaders break into your home at 3 in the morning and your kids are down the hall? How long should they spend ensuring the accuracy of such criteria before acting on their defense strategy? Please also provide examples of other criteria where people have chosen to enter your property and what would be deemed appropriate to the risk they present. Such a criteria will be essential so that police can determine if a prosecution must take place.
Comment
I don't know if notes is the place to ask this question, but I can't for the life of me understand the logic behind criminals being given legal protection and legal safe passage when they trespass on other peoples properties. Perhaps someone could explain it by addressing my questions.
• If somebody walks off with my property shouldn't I have the right to stop that person? If that person turns on me shouldn't I have the unquestionable right to defend myself without facing the huge legal bills of an unsuccessful police prosecution?
• If that person is twice as big as me or there are three people stealing my property I would need to use a weapon that had enough force as to ensure success or risk being killed.
• If I am charged with using a weapon to assist me stop criminals stealing my property it will cost me more in court than the likely value of the goods stolen. Given the polices low clearance rate and low priority to property crime I will most likely lose either way. The criminal wins and, as I have seen first hand, walk of laughing just adding humiliation to to growing toll of injustices done against me by the criminal and the law. Shouldn't I have the unquestionable right to use what ever force is necessary to protect my property without placing my own life at risk? If not, what should the victim expect from the police and the law?
Policing for Business Concerns Comment
Perhaps the emphasis here should be more on policing actual physical material loss, and genuine bodily harm as opposed to ephemeral losses (copyright claims etc).
Effective methods for immobilising people One participant provided some ideas for effectively of immobilising offenders • I have the notion that a bolas shot out of a gas-powered thrower would tie up the most recalcitrant offender before he had time to think "Oh - 'Jack Robinson!'", let alone say the equivalent in his own patois.
• There are also rocket propelled nets. I'm quite sure it's not beyond Kiwi ingenuity to adapt these sorts of devices to use by the Police in the circumstances we are discussing.
|