"Kill-or-be-killed" Self-Defense Guru Banned from U.K.

[TomTomKent]

And once again, it doesn't matter if you happen to agree with the guy or not.
It doesn't matter when you think it is ok to maim or kill somebody else.

Either everybody should be allowed to tell you when maiming and killing are justified (and how to do it which is what the chap does for a living). Or nobody can. You either have freedom of speech for everybody or you have a restriction and that restriction is universal. If you want to accept that one person has an inate right to kill to protect what they hold dear then unfortunately that is a dangerous precedent. Some people hold other ideals above their family.shall we allow the advocation of maiming and killing to protect your home? Your property? Your god? Your culture? Your way of life?


Or do you just not incite others to maim or kill.

[Chris Scott]

Tom Tom
The law is full of provisos and exceptions - that surely is the whole basis of case law.
I really can't think of one instance of British law where what you are saying applies - that if someone is allowed a certain course of action in one situation then, by definition, everyone must be allowed the same freedom of action in all circumstances.
This guy is saying - as far as I can make from a quick perusal of his web site - that if you feel that your life is in imminent danger from someone in pursuance of a criminal act then you have the right to take forceful, even lethal, action to protect yourself, your family and your property. There has been a lot of support for getting something very similar to that enshrined in British law after a spate of cases some years back where householders were prosecuted for using force in the protection of their lives and property. There were even absurd cases where offenders tried to sue householders for compensation! I am glad to say that recent cases of this type have not gone to court and the CPS has made it clear that as a general rule if reasonable force is used then prosecution will not follow. In my opinion, if your life is in danger or that of a family member then the use of lethal force against an intruder in your property, who has no business being there, is reasonable.
That is a very different proposition from a hate preacher proposing that in the pursuance of a pre medieval religion you have the right to kill and maim indiscriminately, with your victims being random innocent bystanders.
To suggest that if you advocate the right to forceful self defence within the law, then you must also, in the interests of fairness and balance, also allow the preaching of hate killing and religious atrocities, is something I cannot see at all.
The law is not a matter of "all or nothing" but is hedged in with exceptions and provisos.

[TomTomKent]

Case law is built upon precedents. You are absolutely correct. But this is not being tried as a case, it is a policy decision to not allow his entry. If he appeals the decision in front of a judge it will be an interesting test case.

So assume for a second this chap was allowed to make his speech in which he advocates that the use of reasonable force be superceded by a right to use lethal force. Ignore anything else, the circumstances, appeals to emotion, claim of self defence. All irrelevant. He is stating that under circumstance X you should be able to ignore law y and use lethal force.

Under the human rights act he should be free to do so.

So lets assume he appeals, or the case is made before a court when he sues for a breech of which ever law prevented him from giving his speech. What precedent is set by the case? That there is a difference between the taking of a life in one situation to others? No,the casewas not about the taking of lives. It was about advocating actions not currently condoned by law. In theory the same discussion could be had if he stated ownership of property was wrong and advocates theft, or he spoke out about the tyranny of speedlimits and advocated dangerous driving.

Case law did not require individual test cases for each ethnic group when it set precedents over discrimination in the workplace based on race. A recent case that stirred a lot of emotion established a precedent on the legality or illegality of a bed and breakfast refusing service to a homosexual couple, but that precedent applies to all services and all sexualities. It can be used to argue other discriminations: race, religion, football clubs, etc.

If it is decided that a guy can advocate the use of violence against the principle of one law, how is that not a precedent for speaking out against other laws? If one value can be protected by lethal force, and the use of lethal force encouraged, why not other principles? If the requirement is "I feel strongly that circumstance x overules law y" then there will be others who will argue from the precedent that law Z should also be overuled if they too feel strongly enough about their circumstances.

Back on point this will probably not be an issue of law, but of immigration policy. It wont reach a court, but will be politically dubious. "You let that guy in to say why muggers can be killed! Why don't i have the right to tell people why [insert group here] should be killed?" Or "are you tellin' me that advocating the murder of a poor housebreaker is morally more reasonable than burning a few books? C'mon!"

Going off topic, I disagree with the guy and as I suggested before would welcome him to give his speeches so valid arguments could be made against him. Sure there will be circumstances when "reasonable" may well need to be lethal. But not all of those you listed. I can imagine more people being inclined to see lethal force as reasonable when their lives,or those of their family are in danger. But to maim or kill to protect property? How many xboxes is a human life worth? If the law changed how many would use an unreasonable amountof force and jump directly to lethal force?

Ok I live in an average kent town. Somebody breaks into my house with a knife to steal mycar keys. I don't think anybody argues I should defend myself. I grab something big and heavy, lets say a frying pan, I scream and shout and let him know I dialled 999 but he wants a fight and attacks.

I swing once and knock the toerag for six. Thats reasonable.
If he is not out cold is it reasonable to clobber him again?
If he is out cold should I trying to kill or maim him to make sure he remains out of the game?

One hit stops the attack and might scare him off.
Two puts him in hospital and is shakey ground. For me, with the luxury of never having been there, seems wrong.
Three is no longer self defence in my opinion. No longer reasonable..

[Ally]

And once again, it doesn't matter if you happen to agree with the guy or not.
It doesn't matter when you think it is ok to maim or kill somebody else.

Either everybody should be allowed to tell you when maiming and killing are justified (and how to do it which is what the chap does for a living). Or nobody can. You either have freedom of speech for everybody or you have a restriction and that restriction is universal. If you want to accept that one person has an inate right to kill to protect what they hold dear then unfortunately that is a dangerous precedent. Some people hold other ideals above their family.shall we allow the advocation of maiming and killing to protect your home? Your property? Your god? Your culture? Your way of life?


Or do you just not incite others to maim or kill.

Sorry but no. You are using a logical fallacy. Teaching people how to kill those who are actually attempting to kill them is NOT the exact same thing as advocating people to kill black people or gay people or even pansy weak bleeding hearts who are attempting to turn humans into docile brainless sheep.

The two are not equal. One is first degree murder, a crime. The other is justifiable homicide by the reason of self-defense.

What you are basically saying is there's no real difference between having sex with your wife consensually and raping her, that it is the act that is the only determining factor and not all the external factors that go along with the act. You cannot divorce an act from its external factors and look at it as an isolate. There are way too many variables in life for that to be the case.

[Ally]

Ok I live in an average kent town. Somebody breaks into my house with a knife to steal mycar keys. I don't think anybody argues I should defend myself. I grab something big and heavy, lets say a frying pan, I scream and shout and let him know I dialled 999 but he wants a fight and attacks.

I swing once and knock the toerag for six. Thats reasonable.
If he is not out cold is it reasonable to clobber him again?
If he is out cold should I trying to kill or maim him to make sure he remains out of the game?

One hit stops the attack and might scare him off.
Two puts him in hospital and is shakey ground. For me, with the luxury of never having been there, seems wrong.
Three is no longer self defence in my opinion. No longer reasonable..

And that's a call you should make for yourself and should have the right to. And I should have the right to make the call of what's reasonable in my house, for my situation. Our situations, may not be the same, and what may be reasonable force for you, may absolutely not guarantee my safety or my self from harm. For various reasons that I won't go into, stopping an attack in the moment isn't necessarily going to prevent him from attacking me ten seconds later. Therefore, for my own safety, anyone enters my home illegally with the intent to rob me or do me harm, will end up SEVERELY incapacitated or dead before I will be guaranteed of my safety.

I don't believe in "human rights". That's pure arrogance, the idea that somehow our entire species is somehow more "awesome" than every other species on the planet and deserves guaranteed rights as a whole. I believe in individual rights, which you possess, right up until the time you commit acts that prove you unworthy of protection under the law.

In short, a criminal douchebag entering my house to kill me or rape me absolutely has far less right to life than I do. And I am glad I live in a state and a country where that is understood. America has at least gotten that right, so far.

[TomTomKent]

Sorry but no. You are using a logical fallacy. Teaching people how to kill those who are actually attempting to kill them is NOT the exact same thing as advocating people to kill black people or gay people or even pansy weak bleeding hearts who are attempting to turn humans into docile brainless sheep.

The two are not equal. One is first degree murder, a crime. The other is justifiable homicide by the reason of self-defense.

What you are basically saying is there's no real difference between having sex with your wife consensually and raping her, that it is the act that is the only determining factor and not all the external factors that go along with the act. You cannot divorce an act from its external factors and look at it as an isolate. There are way too many variables in life for that to be the case.

The two are equal in that they are both condoning violence in a way that opposes current law. If you feel it is personally justified is directly counter to the point. As is your example of sex and rape. Condoning one is an act with in the law, the other is to condone an illegal act.

In fact, let's use your example. If a person wished to suggest that the laws governing consent were outmoded and should be ignored under some circumstance. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, it is the same deal: a justification for actions counter to the law.

Should he also be heard? We can't choose which laws you can choose to speak against based on if they are ones you would like to change. It wouldnt matter if it was the age of consent, the speed limit, or the definition of reasonable force. Or for that matter violence of any form. Advocating actions against a law is either allowed or not.

[TomTomKent]

And that's a call you should make for yourself and should have the right to. And I should have the right to make the call of what's reasonable in my house, for my situation. Our situations, may not be the same, and what may be reasonable force for you, may absolutely not guarantee my safety or my self from harm. For various reasons that I won't go into, stopping an attack in the moment isn't necessarily going to prevent him from attacking me ten seconds later. Therefore, for my own safety, anyone enters my home illegally with the intent to rob me or do me harm, will end up SEVERELY incapacitated or dead before I will be guaranteed of my safety.

I don't believe in "human rights". That's pure arrogance, the idea that somehow our entire species is somehow more "awesome" than every other species on the planet and deserves guaranteed rights as a whole. I believe in individual rights, which you possess, right up until the time you commit acts that prove you unworthy of protection under the law.

In short, a criminal douchebag entering my house to kill me or rape me absolutely has far less right to life than I do. And I am glad I live in a state and a country where that is understood. America has at least gotten that right, so far.

You don't believe in human rights, but staunchly defend your individual rights?

Would they, perchance be your innate rights to freedom from slavery, free expression, freedom from persecution, freedom of belief, to a life with your family? Freedom from torture and freedom to enjoy a basic quality of life?

If not which should you like to give up?

And I disagree with your ethos entirely. There is an unfathomable distinction between intending to do what ever it takes to protect your home, and deciding from before the situation arises that what has to be done is kill or maim. And it is entirely the place of the law to decide when reasonable force applies. If it were not then people I know well with very different ideas of who or what is a "threat" to their family would revel in using mob justice to "protect" themselves.

Starting from the point of using force regardless of alternatives will simply mean your average housebreaker or the like feels they have no choice but carry a weapon to defend themselves. Thus your assumed danger is self fulfilling.

That and living with blood on your hands that may not have been needed to be spilt. If one hit sends the thief running why do i need to be obliged to hit him a second, or third time?

[louisa]

...I just happen to have an incredibly sharp (but perfectly legally purchased - forty years ago) Royal Navy officers sword hanging above my kitchen door...it's very sharp...razor sharp...I honed it only last month...

Personally I don't give a damn...my view is that if you're in my house you're mine...by the time the police query it, either you're dead or I am...so who cares...want to dispute it with me?

I'd love someone to break in....

Lots of love

Dave

You'd have to be crazy hoping that someone will break in.

You may not have time to get to your knife (above the kitchen door) before the intruder gets to you. The intruder may already be armed with a knife and will have the advantage of being ready, mentally and physically to tackle somebody who gets in his way.

I am all in favour of people defending their homes but it's a mistake to think you would definitely get the better of an armed intruder.

As for self defence - I am all in favour of it - especially for women. I think it should be taught in schools as part of the curriculum. There are many ways of physically disabling somebody without damaging them permanently.

My main fear is that this person who wants to come to this country and instruct people on how to kill others may have the best of intentions but these skills could end up being used by the wrong people. The type of people we wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley (or our homes) anyway.

[TomTomKent]

Louisa has found a far more concise and elegant way of voicing my concerns.

[Ally]

The two are equal in that they are both condoning violence in a way that opposes current law. If you feel it is personally justified is directly counter to the point. As is your example of sex and rape. Condoning one is an act with in the law, the other is to condone an illegal act.

In fact, let's use your example. If a person wished to suggest that the laws governing consent were outmoded and should be ignored under some circumstance. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, it is the same deal: a justification for actions counter to the law.

Should he also be heard? We can't choose which laws you can choose to speak against based on if they are ones you would like to change. It wouldnt matter if it was the age of consent, the speed limit, or the definition of reasonable force. Or for that matter violence of any form. Advocating actions against a law is either allowed or not.

Actually you are flipping it around. Sex with your mate is an inalienable right. How about if the "law" comes along and says you are no longer allowed to have even consensual sex with your mate, because it is deemed against "societal interests"? And that you are obligated to suffer, because the "law" says so? Laws are inherently flawed being that they are made by men, and usually for the benefit of "MEN" not people, men. Individual men, who hold power, and want control.

Laws are not the be-all and end all of human civilazation. It used to be legal to rape your wife, or beat her. That doesn't make it right. So you holding up the "law" as the ultimate final say, is frankly BS. Of course the government wants to take away your right to defend yourself and turn you into a mindless sheep. It's in their absolute best interest to have a mindless, defenseless population who is accustomed to being preyed upon and considers it normal and right that they not defend themselves. It makes you easier to control and good job, it appears to be working.

So the idea that "the law" matters diddly squat, is frankly laughable. But even in the framework of the "law" your argument is irrelevant. Rape is an illegal act. Consensual sex is not. Murder is an illegal act. Reasonable force to defend yourself, even if it ends in death is not. The only thing under discussion is what constitutes "reasonable force". And frankly most people are getting a little sick of the idea that people can break into their homes and they are just supposed to do nothing about it. Your government seems hell-bent on turning everyone into victims and you guys not only accept it but see it as somehow "noble".


But as for who should be allowed to be heard, everyone should absolutely. Or you cannot call yourselves a free society. So as long as you are willing to accept that you are the slaves of your government, then fine, limit anyone's free speech, your country seems well on its way. But then give up any claims to living in a free society. You are no different than the most totalitarian of thought crime societies.

[Ally]

You don't believe in human rights, but staunchly defend your individual rights?

Yes. I have done nothing that warrants losing them. What precisely are "human rights" but completely invented constructs that attempt to elevate humans far beyond their actual merits.

Would they, perchance be your innate rights to freedom from slavery, free expression, freedom from persecution, freedom of belief, to a life with your family? Freedom from torture and freedom to enjoy a basic quality of life?

If not which should you like to give up?

The freedom to enjoy a "basic quality of life" for one. That's just pure BS. Who invented that crap? Who precisely is responsible for providing me with that basic quality of life? Why precisely should you be obligated to pay my way through the world? If I lack the ambition, talent or skill to provide for myself, then that shouldn't be an automatic guarantee. Who would actually choose to go out and work if you had a "right to quality of life" guarantee?

And also, why should I be have a right to be free from persecution? If I am an odious and obnoxious rapist, child molester, why precisely should I have an innate right NOT to be persecuted. People make choices and they suffer from those consequences.

And I disagree with your ethos entirely. There is an unfathomable distinction between intending to do what ever it takes to protect your home, and deciding from before the situation arises that what has to be done is kill or maim. And it is entirely the place of the law to decide when reasonable force applies.If it were not then people I know well with very different ideas of who or what is a "threat" to their family would revel in using mob justice to "protect" themselves.

And you are talking about people going out on the attack, not people acting in the defense. You are attempting to equate "going out and attacking" with being attacked and defending. You are attempting a slippery slope argument that is both falacious and ludicrous. No law on the planet has the "right" to tell me, I must risk my own life and safety to protect some deadbeat rapists killer's "right" to enter my home uninvited and put me at risk.

Starting from the point of using force regardless of alternatives will simply mean your average housebreaker or the like feels they have no choice but carry a weapon to defend themselves. Thus your assumed danger is self fulfilling.

It's only self-fulfilling is a criminal deadbeat choses to break into the average homeowners house. Which they might do regardless of whether they have a gun. So what you are saying is, keep yourself defenseless so no one will break in....

Yeah that works really well, except of course, you know, when they break in and kill you because you have no way of defending yourself.

That and living with blood on your hands that may not have been needed to be spilt. If one hit sends the thief running why do i need to be obliged to hit him a second, or third time?

I am perfectly happy living with criminal blood on my hands, not a problem at all. And maybe the reason to hit for the third time, is to prevent them from breaking into the eighty year old's house down the street the next day, and killing her because she lacks ALL ability to defend herself. But I understand you are okay with HER blood on your hands, because you didn't do what it took to stop the criminal in the first place.

You break into my house and I have the chance, I will improve society for all, not just myself.

[Ally]

I am all in favour of people defending their homes but it's a mistake to think you would definitely get the better of an armed intruder.

Which is why I am an armed homeowner. And what's the alternative. Die nice and peacefully?

My main fear is that this person who wants to come to this country and instruct people on how to kill others may have the best of intentions but these skills could end up being used by the wrong people. The type of people we wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley (or our homes) anyway.

This is a ludicrous argument. You think there's not a thousand ways that a criminal can't arm himself? Don't teach law-abiding people to protect themselves because criminals might use these tactics is yet another fallacy. You think criminals don't carry knives or even guns? You think criminals worry about the "legalities" of being armed? Of course not. They don't go, gee I am going to go rob this store but I am not going to carry a knife cause that would be illegal. And then it's just the law-abiding who have been indoctrinated not to defend themselves who stand their like sheep to a slaughter, so well-versed in victimhood that they have no means of defense.

The criminals are going to learn these skills regardless, leaving people who are so afraid of the criminals having weapons that they leave themselves defenseless, in the ludicrous idea that the criminals will play by the rules.

[TomTomKent]

Actually you are flipping it around. Sex with your mate is an inalienable right. How about if the "law" comes along and says you are no longer allowed to have even consensual sex with your mate, because it is deemed against "societal interests"? And that you are obligated to suffer, because the "law" says so? Laws are inherently flawed being that they are made by men, and usually for the benefit of "MEN" not people, men. Individual men, who hold power, and want control.

Laws are not the be-all and end all of human civilazation. It used to be legal to rape your wife, or beat her. That doesn't make it right. So you holding up the "law" as the ultimate final say, is frankly BS. Of course the government wants to take away your right to defend yourself and turn you into a mindless sheep. It's in their absolute best interest to have a mindless, defenseless population who is accustomed to being preyed upon and considers it normal and right that they not defend themselves. It makes you easier to control and good job, it appears to be working.

So the idea that "the law" matters diddly squat, is frankly laughable. But even in the framework of the "law" your argument is irrelevant. Rape is an illegal act. Consensual sex is not. Murder is an illegal act. Reasonable force to defend yourself, even if it ends in death is not. The only thing under discussion is what constitutes "reasonable force". And frankly most people are getting a little sick of the idea that people can break into their homes and they are just supposed to do nothing about it. Your government seems hell-bent on turning everyone into victims and you guys not only accept it but see it as somehow "noble".


But as for who should be allowed to be heard, everyone should absolutely. Or you cannot call yourselves a free society. So as long as you are willing to accept that you are the slaves of your government, then fine, limit anyone's free speech, your country seems well on its way. But then give up any claims to living in a free society. You are no different than the most totalitarian of thought crime societies.

Interesting. I appear to be a sheep for letting the government and at the same time not being sick of the same thing "most people " are?

And no. I didn't have it the wrong way around. An illegal act being advocated is EXACTLY the right way round for this conversation. Acting with the intention of killing , altering consent, the illegal being advocated.

And whom exactly is hell bent on turning anybody to a victim? Not accepting maiming and killing as a reasonable response to the theft of inanimate, insured property is to victimise the thief? No, it is not. Sorry but pointing out human life has a higher worth than any property you care to name is not making anybody a victim.

[TomTomKent]

Which is why I am an armed homeowner. And what's the alternative. Die nice and peacefully?




This is a ludicrous argument. You think there's not a thousand ways that a criminal can't arm himself? Don't teach law-abiding people to protect themselves because criminals might use these tactics is yet another fallacy. You think criminals don't carry knives or even guns? You think criminals worry about the "legalities" of being armed? Of course not. They don't go, gee I am going to go rob this store but I am not going to carry a knife cause that would be illegal. And then it's just the law-abiding who have been indoctrinated not to defend themselves who stand their like sheep to a slaughter, so well-versed in victimhood that they have no means of defense.

The criminals are going to learn these skills regardless, leaving people who are so afraid of the criminals having weapons that they leave themselves defenseless, in the ludicrous idea that the criminals will play by the rules.

Ok now I assume you are saying this just because you are missing the point, or if you see the point but refuse to concede it exists at all.

The point is not that people should not be taught to defend themselves.
The point is that "defend yourself" does not mean "kill and maim", and should not be presented as the same thing. Simply pretending there is no viable alternative is ill informed. There are viable and effective alternatives to fatal force that can be deployed against the majority of crimes in the UK. We do not live in a world where rape alarms, pepper spray, cs gas, tazers, self defence classes, or "not forcing the nasty robber to do something stupid by threatening them with a weapon" aren't viable.

You know the first lesson in any self defence or martial arts class? Avoid the need to engage if you can. Not kill the other guy. If you have to engage you use the force reasonable to the situation, you dont assume that to be lethal.

[Ally]

You keep falling back on your constant refrain about "legal" The law is fake. it is entirely made up. We are talking about REAL rights, those designed and installed by nature.

One is the right to mate with your partner. Which the government doesn't have the "right" to deprive you of.

The other is the right to self defense, including killing for self-defense. Which the government doesn't have the "right" to deprive you of.

Laws are often WRONG. It's a simple concept, but one sooo many people have difficulty grasping.

And whom exactly is hell bent on turning anybody to a victim? Not accepting maiming and killing as a reasonable response to the theft of inanimate, insured property is to victimise the thief? No, it is not. Sorry but pointing out human life has a higher worth than any property you care to name is not making anybody a victim.

That is your opinion. I don't agree with it. Not all human life is more valuable than any inanimate object. If I were given a choice between lighting my house of fire, or lighting a pedophile on fire, the kiddie rapist will burn every time. Given the choice between a murderer and my car? Bye bye Ted Bundy. Given the choice between defending my property and shooting dead some worthless piece of crap who is entering my home to relieve me of my possessions? I'll be mopping the blood stains off the walls for weeks. Not all humans are imbued with value just because they were shot out a human uterus as opposed to a baboon's. Your DNA doesn't make you that special.

Humans who prey on other humans lose their rights. It's really that simple.