"The people have spoken, the bastards!"

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm sure these people think the Hippocratic Oath is simply a nice fairytale to make you feel better when going to hospital. Talk about a lack of respect for your fellow men.

Not to mention that if you are in a violent accident, the paramedics only peruse your wallet looking for specific medical cards that notify them if you are allergic to some drugs or any special conditions. Besides, paramedics in particular are some of the most dedicated and hardworking people in the world, bar none. I don't know how they do it, because of what a freakishly high stress job it is.

But the people who make the claim I described say that the paramedics/doctors do it unconsciously or secretly, and don't even realize that they are doing it. I'm not entirely sure why they think their claim exists, since they don't have any statistics indicating a higher death rate among organ donors to point to and by their own claim, the doctors don't even realize they are doing it, let alone telling anyone about it. Then again, these really aren't rational people.

[Tatterdemalion]

* 1st place:
Law 5: The proposal to authorise homeowners to use any means to defend their home from intruders :
37% of the vote.

I can't say this surprises me at all. Though I must say I'd be happier seeing the full text of the proposed law before I'd vote on it. The current laws on property defence over here are insanely restrictive, though I'd question allowing people to use lethal force to defend anything other than themselves and their family/friends. Rather I'd support a much laxer definition of 'reasonable force' in the current legislation. (Not to mention limiting the number of situations in which trespassers can take the property owners to court.)

In any case, the law will either never get passed or else will emerge in a completely different form to that which it entered the house. The politicians' contempt for the British public/media in the area of law and order is legendary.

Remember the majority of the British people are actually in favour of reintroducing hanging, yet the only MPs that seriously propose such legislation are the hard-line right-wingers. Personally that suits me just fine, even if it is a little unscrupulous, but whatever.

[El Moose Monstero]

You have a source for that claim? I find it very hard to believe that the majority of the populace is in favour of bringing back hanging. Introducing the death penalty possibily, especially if the interviewer was playing on recent cases such as the Holly/Jessica case.

[Nathan F]

OK, could someone please explain to me how elections work in Britain? I'm curious to know when this ass will be elected out. I mean, seriously, anyone who would vocally treat their constituents like that does NOT need to be in office. I know that if I ever heard my senator say something like that, he'd definitely never get my vote again.

[Tatterdemalion]

You have a source for that claim? I find it very hard to believe that the majority of the populace is in favour of bringing back hanging. Introducing the death penalty possibily, especially if the interviewer was playing on recent cases such as the Holly/Jessica case.

You're quite right. I withdraw my previous comment. Technically hanging is the current method of execution (The whole 'treason' technicality) and thus being in favour of reintroducing the death penalty would technically be being in favour of reintroducing hanging, but no one filling out the poll would know.

In fact as you implied, most of the pro-capital punishment arguments are proposed after high profile cases (Huntley trial, September 11th etc.) but from what I remember the rate has been pretty constant for years now. (Though I admit, I don't have any long term proof of that, so think me a liar if you will.)

Telegraph poll

Q11. And would you yourself approve or oppose the re-introduction of the death penalty for murder of children only?
Approve 62%
Oppose 32%
Don't know 6%

Q12. And would you yourself approve or oppose the re-introduction of the death penalty for murder of adults or children?
Approve 54%
Oppose 36%
Don't know 10%

Radio Five Terrorism poll

Q7. Here are some things people have suggested should be done to counter the risks of terrorism. Others oppose them as they say they endanger the rights of everyone. Bearing these two things in mind, for each one please say whether you would support or oppose the measure to counter terrorism?

Bring in the death penalty for terrorist offences that kill people
Support 60%
Oppose 34%
Don't know 5%

[Glocksman]

The current laws on property defence over here are insanely restrictive, though I'd question allowing people to use lethal force to defend anything other than themselves and their family/friends. Rather I'd support a much laxer definition of 'reasonable force' in the current legislation. (Not to mention limiting the number of situations in which trespassers can take the property owners to court.)

Isn't the standard 'proportionate force' no matter what the circumstances are?

A wise US jurist once observed (Learned Hand or Oliver Wendell Holmes, I'm not sure which) that 'The law does not demand detached reflection in the face of an upraised knife'.

From what little I've seen of UK law in action, it seems that the UK does demand 'detached reflection', and frankly that standard will see innocent people packed off to prison for defending their homes.

This is one of the premises behind the laws in most US states that give wide latitude to homeowners who use deadly force to defend their dwellings. Another premise is the 'castle doctrine'.

In any case, in most US states a much looser standard applies for the use of lethal force to defend one's home than would apply in other self-defense situations.

The prevailing US standard for self defense outside of the home is somewhat different.

Here's what my state's law is:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).

Let's look at the legal definitions of the key words in that statute.

IC 35-41-1-4
"Bodily injury" defined
Sec. 4. "Bodily injury" means any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.

IC 35-41-1-7
"Deadly force" defined
Sec. 7. "Deadly force" means force that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.

IC 35-41-1-10
"Dwelling" defined
Sec. 10. "Dwelling" means a building, structure, or other enclosed space, permanent or temporary, movable or fixed, that is a person's home or place of lodging.

IC 35-41-1-11
"Forcible felony" defined
Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.

"Serious bodily injury" defined
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement;
(2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.

Now that we have the legal definitions, we can determine what level of force would be legal in a particular situation.

However, the key word that isn't defined in the law is 'reasonable'.
What this means is that would an average person knowing the facts as you knew them at the time do what you did in the situation.

In other words, it would be reasonable for me to use deadly force to defend myself against a 16 year old coming at me with a lead pipe while threatening to crush my skull.

It would be unreasonable for me to use deadly force in that situation if the person with the pipe was an 8 year old.

Similiarly, it would be reasonable for me to draw my own (legally carried) gun and shoot someone who threatens me with a firearm, even if it later came out that the 'gun' in question was a realistic looking replica or wasn't loaded.

The facts as I knew them at the time was that someone was threatening me with a gun. I had no way of knowing if it was unloaded, a replica, or an air rifle (which would still justify the use of deadly force, btw.).

It would be unreasonable if I shot someone who threatened me with an orange toy pistol.

Let's apply the Indiana statute on defense of dwelling to the Martin situation.

Eastern Daily Press Storyboard

Going by this storyboard, do you think it was a use of 'reasonable force' to fire a shotgun at unknown intruders in your home in the dark?

I do, and I'll guarantee you that if this had happened in Indiana 2 things would have been different.

One is that Martin wouldn't have been convicted of anything.
Two is that both burglars would probably have died because here he would have had access to much more effective loads (buckshot or slugs instead of birdshot) for his shotgun.

Colorado's statute is even less restrictive:

1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Perhaps the UK should adopt Colorado's law.

[Stuart Mackey]

OK, could someone please explain to me how elections work in Britain? I'm curious to know when this ass will be elected out. I mean, seriously, anyone who would vocally treat their constituents like that does NOT need to be in office. I know that if I ever heard my senator say something like that, he'd definitely never get my vote again.

Britian uses the Westminster system {funnily enough } under this system the country is divided into a number of geographic areas, size determined by population. Each of these areas elects a represetative.
A representative {MP} is elected on a first past the post basis ie, the first person to get a majority gets the seat in Parliment.

Thats the theory.
To accomplish anything a prospective MP needs to belong to a political party and the local party organisation selects canidates. People tend to vote for politcal parties rather than individuals, as individuals can seldom do squat in the Westminster system, as such a politician can saftly ignore public opinion in some instances so long as they dont embaress the party as a whole.

[The_Nice_Guy]

People tend to vote for politcal parties rather than individuals

I think this is true for most democratic processes, not just the Westminister system.

The Wobbly Guy

[Stuart Mackey]

People tend to vote for politcal parties rather than individuals

I think this is true for most democratic processes, not just the Westminister system.

The Wobbly Guy

I would also add that they vote for policy as well rather than individuals.
The point being that the MP who is an asshole can be just that to a degree without fear of being voted out by an angry populace. In the US you can be voted on your personall merits.

[The Third Man]

I mean, seriously, anyone who would vocally treat their constituents like that does NOT need to be in office.

That's nothing. John Prescott notoriously went beyond the vocal and punched one of his constituents in the head on national TV. He is currently Deputy PM. It seems some voters are impressed by this sort of thing.

[Stuart Mackey]

I mean, seriously, anyone who would vocally treat their constituents like that does NOT need to be in office.

That's nothing. John Prescott notoriously went beyond the vocal and punched one of his constituents in the head on national TV. He is currently Deputy PM. It seems some voters are impressed by this sort of thing.

As I recall that was right after said protester went beyoned vocal and had a go at Prescott..egged him or something from very close range.

[Gunshy]

As I recall that was right after said protester went beyoned vocal and had a go at Prescott..egged him or something from very close range.

Even so, could you imagine, for example, California voters electing Arnold if he had punched the guy who egged him in the jaw?

I'm not saying Prescott was in the wrong (If someone eggs me, I'll probably take a swing at him), but I doubt American voters would go for that.

[Howedar]

I think you're wrong.

[Admiral Valdemar]

As I recall that was right after said protester went beyoned vocal and had a go at Prescott..egged him or something from very close range.

Even so, could you imagine, for example, California voters electing Arnold if he had punched the guy who egged him in the jaw?

I'm not saying Prescott was in the wrong (If someone eggs me, I'll probably take a swing at him), but I doubt American voters would go for that.

There's a reason Prescott is deputy PM and that's because he can do less damage there provided he doesn't open his mouth.

I would seriously worry if he was put in any position of power, he is for all intents and purposes a fucking idiot and shamefully from the north where I live too.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think you're wrong.

??Errr..who's wrong?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I, and other Californians would still vote for him

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

That is what Howedar thinks you got wrong.
Would you still vote for Buzz Aldrin for a public office, even after punching conspiricy man in the jaw? I would. Punching someone in the face isn't an automatic ban on public office. WHO you punched, and WHY is at issue. There is always the "The Asshole had it coming" defence. (Similar to "The Bitrch deserved it!", and "The Slut's Nuts." While this doesn't go over well in criminal court, (Unless you have an assload of smear money for lawyers, and an OJ jury) the court of public opinion is a different one.
Sorry for the double post, my cat decided I wasn't paying enough attention to her, and climbed on my keyboard, sending it off incomplete.

[Glocksman]

That is what Howedar thinks you got wrong.
Would you still vote for Buzz Aldrin for a public office, even after punching conspiricy man in the jaw? I would. Punching someone in the face isn't an automatic ban on public office. WHO you punched, and WHY is at issue. There is always the "The Asshole had it coming" defence. (Similar to "The Bitrch deserved it!", and "The Slut's Nuts." While this doesn't go over well in criminal court, (Unless you have an assload of smear money for lawyers, and an OJ jury) the court of public opinion is a different one.
Sorry for the double post, my cat decided I wasn't paying enough attention to her, and climbed on my keyboard, sending it off incomplete.

In a similar vein, did GWB lose votes because he called a reporter an 'asshole'?

Probably not.

In fact, his candor probably gained him a few votes.

[Gunshy]

That is what Howedar thinks you got wrong.
Would you still vote for Buzz Aldrin for a public office, even after punching conspiricy man in the jaw? I would. Punching someone in the face isn't an automatic ban on public office. WHO you punched, and WHY is at issue..

Buzz Aldrin? Maybe. I heard reports that he felt threatened by the man, so he punched him.

But what would be the justification for buffed out canidate Schwarzenwhatever cold cocking a guy who pelted him with an egg, other than anger? Like I said, that's something I'd probably do, but I wouldn't consider that behavior appropriate for a politician. So he'd have definitely lost my vote.

Not that I voted for him anyway.

In a similar vein, did GWB lose votes because he called a reporter an 'asshole'?

Probably not.

In fact, his candor probably gained him a few votes.

True, but if GW had punched the reporter in the face, I'm sure he would have lost a few votes.

[Glocksman]

It would depend on the level of provocation.

If the reporter asked him about Laura turning tricks in Times Square or Jenna being on the cover of Crackwhore Magazine with Cartman's mom, GWB could probably have beat the shit out of the guy and come out of it smelling like a rose.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Actually, Sir Sirius is of the opinion that one should not be able to opt out.

If we took a hypothetical scenario where everybody was opting out (and people on organ donor waiting lists were dying left and right), I would say that there's perfectly reasonable ethical justification to overrule those wishes.

I think the point is the ability to opt out should be considered a courtesy or privledge, not a moral imperitive or right.

[Tatterdemalion]

Even so, could you imagine, for example, California voters electing Arnold if he had punched the guy who egged him in the jaw?

I'm not saying Prescott was in the wrong (If someone eggs me, I'll probably take a swing at him), but I doubt American voters would go for that.

Because when John Prescott does it it's cute. People look the other way when Prescott does something like that, partly because he has little real power (the Deputy Prime Minister is a lot like Vice-President was when the role was first drawn up), and partly because everyone secretly wanted him to do that anyway.

[TheDarkling]

Prescott hitting that guy was the most honest thing I have ever seen a politician do, that being said I am glad Prescott is simply a bench warmer (even if it is the front bench).

[Master of Ossus]

I think that any "Home Defense" style bill should mandate that the person feels his life or health (or those of another individual) are being placed in imminent danger, AND that a felony is being perpetrated.

[Glocksman]

In most states, B&E of an occupied dwelling is a felony.

IC 35-43-2-1.5
Residential entry
Sec. 1.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Class D felony.

Given my state's law on defense of dwelling unless I have the advantages of both being heavily armed and of surprise on the intruder, I'm not going to run the risk to my life of trying to hold an intruder at gunpoint for the cops or try to scare him off.

I'm going to shoot him and then call the police, as I have a reasonable belief that someone who breaks into my home while I am present intends upon doing me serious harm.