Has the human rights law gone too far?

[Super T]

It's a simple answer as far as I'm concerned, if you're the type of scum that thinks you can break into somebody's house then claim compensation because the homeowner tapped you over the head with a bit of 4x2 then the human rights bill is a very good idea.

This sort of thing is, unfortunately, the tip of the iceberg. It seems to becoming more apparent recently that the human rights bill should be renamed the criminal protection bill, although we already have a whole agency devoted to that, the Criminal Protection Service, formerly the Crown Prosecution Service.

Thoughts please....

 

[Niels]

I totally agree with you, some of the things like burglars sueing their victims and stuff like that are really retarded. But that's only the start, agreeing is just the easy part, however there doesn't seem to be such an easy solution to prevent these stupid things from happening.

 

[ledhed]

The Human Rights Act came into force in 2000. It ‘incorporates’ into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights, making civil and political rights enforceable by courts in England and Wales.

Liberty campaigned for many years for the incorporation of European Human Rights laws, and continue to work in the courts and with parliament to protect and promote those rights and freedoms.

We welcome the creation of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which provides an opportunity to raise public awareness and bring greater human rights protection to the most vulnerable people in society.

We hope that the Commission will provide an educational and informational role, bridging the gap between human rights litigation in the courts and public awareness.

News, comment and briefings on specific human rights - such as privacy - can be found on the 'issues' pages.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/human-rights-act.shtml

Is this what you are talking about ?

 

[Kylehnat]

Anything done in self-defense is legal, but you can still be sued for it (assuming the criminal survives ). God bless America...

some of the things like burglars sueing their victims and stuff like that are really retarded

Even better: a teenager broke through a neighbor's security fence, hopped over an iron fence surrounding the pool, drowned in said pool, and the teenager's parents sued the neighbors, who were on vacation at the time.

 

[Dave A]

Really, that's completely screwed .

 

[Super T]

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/human-rights-act.shtml

Is this what you are talking about ?

Not exactly, I agree that human rights to equality and protection are indeed a very important. What I draw the line at is when someone who is obviously breaking other laws, burglary, rape etc, uses the human rights act to thier own advantage.

What about the human rights of poeple affected by criminal scum?

 

[Niels]

Even better: a teenager broke through a neighbor's security fence, hopped over an iron fence surrounding the pool, drowned in said pool, and the teenager's parents sued the neighbors, who were on vacation at the time.

Imagine you can get over a security fence like that, hop over an iron fence with all your agility, and then freakin drown in a pool

 

[Kylehnat]

Imagine you can get over a security fence like that, hop over an iron fence with all your agility, and then freakin drown in a pool

Strong does not equal smart

 

[ledhed]

I do not think the US has made the human rights act part of US law...I can still shoot criminal type home invaders without getting spanked...or sued..BTA

If the crim lives I guess he has a right to sue..even if he cant win..I think they at least have to hear it...then throw it out...Hmmm I should check into it . Each state in the US has its own laws reguarding use of deadly force ...some states llet you shoot criminals just for breaking in... in my state you have to show a reasonable fear that you were about to be harmed before you can shoot a burgular..no shooting them in the back while they try to jump out a window with your TV set etc.

 

[McLaren]

Really, that's completely screwed .

This is America man. I honestly think we have the most f'ed up court system in the world.

If you even think of shooting someone in self defense, even if they have 5 hostages by gun point, the court allows the criminal to sue you for shooting him.

 

[luftrofl]

This is America man. I honestly think we have the most f'ed up court system in the world.

If you even think of shooting someone in self defense, even if they have 5 hostages by gun point, the court allows the criminal to sue you for shooting him.

True, but atleast we haven't allowed people to sue fast food restaruants for becoming obese after eating there(thank god).

Even though people can still sue for spilling coffee on themselves.

 

[Super T]

I do not think the US has made the human rights act part of US law...I can still shoot criminal type home invaders without getting spanked...or sued..BTA

We had a case of that here in the UK a few years back.

A farmer who lived alone was repeatedly targeted by the same gang of burglars until one day he did grab his gun. He shot (in the back) and killed one of them and injured another. Our gun laws over here are much tighter and admittedly his gun license had expired but he was sent to prison while the surviving scumbag was given compensation.

This is a case that was quite high profile in the UK at the time, many people (IMO) supported what he had done. OK so he shot one in the back, and injured another with a gun he no longer held a license for but how many people would have done the same in his situation??

 

[Danoff]

if you're the type of scum that thinks you can break into somebody's house then claim compensation because the homeowner tapped you over the head with a bit of 4x2

Are there people out there who are successfully doing this? I'd like to see the case name and the state in which it was tried.

Even better: a teenager broke through a neighbor's security fence, hopped over an iron fence surrounding the pool, drowned in said pool, and the teenager's parents sued the neighbors, who were on vacation at the time.

Again, case name and state please. There are a lot of phony lawsuits out there that people think are real.

If you even think of shooting someone in self defense, even if they have 5 hostages by gun point, the court allows the criminal to sue you for shooting him.

Cite the legal statute that allows this please. I'm very familiar with the legal code when it comes to self-defense, and I can tell you'd win that lawsuit every time.

A farmer who lived alone was repeatedly targeted by the same gang of burglars until one day he did grab his gun. He shot (in the back) and killed one of them and injured another. Our gun laws over here are much tighter and admittedly his gun license had expired but he was sent to prison while the surviving scumbag was given compensation.

Yea that's a legit case, Famine pointed me to that one and I looked up the details. Pretty awful really. You guys over there in Europe are bound and determined to make it as easy as possible for people to steal from you.

Even though people can still sue for spilling coffee on themselves

Probably the most famous of all frivolous lawsuits. Stella, the lady from the lawsuit, even has a series of awards named after her for similar cases. But there are the official Stella awards and there are the fake ones. The real ones aren't nearly as bad as the fake ones.


My thoughts on the subject are as follows:

Our criminal justice system is flawed. Seriously flawed, and is in desperate need of reformation. Any time citizens have to essentially be lawyers to understand the everyday laws that they have to obide by, everyone becomes a criminal - and that gives a lot of power to citizens over other citiznes and to the state. When that happens, human rights have been compromised. So the first, most essential task, is make sure that the legal code is simple, principled, and easily understood.

The next step is the need to prescribe penalties (or a range of penalties) for civil suits like those that exist for criminal cases. This would prevent juries from awarding "one bazillion-bajillion dollars" to a person who was called a name by one of the company's employees. Juries have no idea how much a million dollars is, nor do they understand that a billion is three orders of magnitude larger. Most jurors have no concept of the amount of money that they penalize companies - which is why they shouldn't be making those judgements.

Another critical adjustment is a loser pays system - the loser would have to pay reasonable legal fees of the winner. Our current system allows anyone to essentially extort money from someone else under the threat of bringing a lawsuit and incurring legal fees. Loser pays fixes that and discourages lawsuits without merit.

 

[Kylehnat]

Again, case name and state please. There are a lot of phony lawsuits out there that people think are real.

I can't. This was a few years ago, and I don't even remember where it was. I heard it on the radio one morning, and saw the story later on Yahoo News.

It did sound absolutely ludicrous, but do you doubt for a second that something like that could happen in this country? Everyone sues everyone for everything. Many of these lawsuits are immediately thrown out, as this one probably was.

 

[Danoff]

It did sound absolutely ludicrous, but do you doubt for a second that something like that could happen in this country? Everyone sues everyone for everything. Many of these lawsuits are immediately thrown out, as this one probably was.

No, I don't doubt that someone might have brought the suit. I seriously doubt it would have gone anywhere. As you say, it was probably thrown out.

 

[Swift]

I still say we(USA) need to go to the policy of, "If you bring a law suit and lose, you pay all legal expenses and 'damages' to the accused party." That would stop A LOT of these frivalous lawsuits.

 

[Famine]

No, I don't doubt that someone might have brought the suit. I seriously doubt it would have gone anywhere. As you say, it was probably thrown out.

I do recall an event - and I cannot cite it as I can't remember any of the names involved, other than the fact that my dad had taught the child - where a 10 year old kid climbed onto the roof of Sheffield's Concord Sports Centre, over barbed and razor wire, and in the course of pratting about fell off. As you would.

He successfully sued Sheffield City Council, as they had not put any warning signs up, in clear view, which explained how dangerous it was to climb onto the roof (they'd only tried to stop people doing it with barbed and razor wire fences). I can only recall that he got a low-6-figure sum - though this is under Health & Safety regulations rather than Human Rights.


The European Convention on Human Rights makes some very odd distinctions. I can challenge an intruder in my house, and I am allowed reasonable force to detain him (citizen's arrest - a crime has taken place, of trespass, and so a citizen may perform an arrest) but I am not allowed to use a weapon (unless I am at considerable risk, and the weapon happens to be something picked up in passing, not left there for the purpose), nor am I allowed to hit the intruder from behind. Hit a burglar over the back of the head with a twobe and you can be sued (it's not reasonable force, and you are hitting the intruder from behind).

 

[Swift]

The European Convention on Human Rights makes some very odd distinctions. I can challenge an intruder in my house, and I am allowed reasonable force to detain him (citizen's arrest - a crime has taken place, of trespass, and so a citizen may perform an arrest) but I am not allowed to use a weapon (unless I am at considerable risk, and the weapon happens to be something picked up in passing, not left there for the purpose), nor am I allowed to hit the intruder from behind. Hit a burglar over the back of the head with a twobe and you can be sued (it's not reasonable force, and you are hitting the intruder from behind).

That is why, unfortunately, if there is an intruder in my home I'm going to just kill them.

It's so ludicrous that someone can be illegally in your home and you can't defend yourself just because they turned around.

 

[Niels]

Hit a burglar over the back of the head with a twobe and you can be sued (it's not reasonable force, and you are hitting the intruder from behind).

Then I guess you should just tap the burglar on the shoulder before then
Why wouldn't they just seperate crimes in 3 parts, the entrance, the act, and the getaway. The getaway part would start once the burglar would have completed his "motive". The entrance would go into "the act" as soon as he gets into his victim's home.

 

[Kylehnat]

(it's not reasonable force, and you are hitting the intruder from behind).

Well, as a fat, hockey-playing lesbian, you should know that hitting from behind is a 5-minute match penalty, a game misconduct, and an automatic 1-game suspension.

It's so ludicrous that someone can be illegally in your home and you can't defend yourself just because they turned around.

Well, to be fair, you aren't giving them a reasonable chance to turn around and shoot you first. Clint Eastwood would be ashamed of your cowardice, and would send you back to dueling school .

 

[Swift]

Then I guess you should just tap the burglar on the shoulder before then
Why wouldn't they just seperate crimes in 3 parts, the entrance, the act, and the getaway. The getaway part would start once the burglar would have completed his "motive". The entrance would go into "the act" as soon as he gets into his victim's home.

Because it's still in the same gray area as we were before. I say, inside someone's premisis illegally - All bets are off.

 

[Famine]

Well, as a fat, hockey-playing lesbian, you should know that hitting from behind is a 5-minute match penalty, a game misconduct, and an automatic 1-game suspension.

By coincidence I have my hockey sticks stored in my bedroom, and I keep "forgetting" to take the spare one out of my car. I certainly don't keep them there for beating the crap out of an intruder/road rage incidents.

And I mean proper hockey - what you guys call "field hockey". My current stick is a 38 inch long lump of 2 inch thick carbon fibre/kevlar composite which would most certainly survive the journey through a man's skull - and the spare is a 37 inch long lump of 2 inch thick wood laminate with carbon fibre. They make for great hanbo.

 

[ledhed]

That is why, unfortunately, if there is an intruder in my home I'm going to just kill them.

It's so ludicrous that someone can be illegally in your home and you can't defend yourself just because they turned around.

Swift you answered your own question . If he has turned around , what are defending yourself from ?
You cant give someone the death penalty for breaking a law that would put him jail for a year or two.
You are entitled to protect YOURSELF from bodily harm , NOT in most cases your property . again in some states you can legally shoot an intruder . BUt most state that you must be at risk for bodily harm . Someone moving away from you with his back towards you is not putting you at risk of bodily harm..in fact in most cases it is you he is trying to keep from harming him...of course he has been caught at a crime and has good reason to run when a fellow with a shotgun finds him in his house...BUT he has been guilty up to then of breaking and entering ..maybe just criminal tresspass and possibly robbery or burglary...show me under what law that calls for the death penalty.
Even if a police officer catches him in your house he cant shoot him unless he attacks the officer ...If he runs away the officer gets to chase him .
only if a felony was commited and others are at risk can deadly force be applied . Be preprared to prove that you were justified in using deadly force...alive or dead the police are going to want to know the circumstances . Watch the news about" bad " police shootings ..they are also accountable .
We have courts and judges and the rule of law to give us a veneer of civilization ..we pay for a " Police force " .
We have to be reasonable about shooting people ..think about it .


Or I'll bust a cap in your gas



@ famine ..the banned user log ? necrotic stalkers ? Veeeeeeery interesting ......

 

[Swift]

Swift you answered your own question . If he has turned around , what are defending yourself from ?
You cant give someone the death penalty for breaking a law that would put him jail for a year or two.
You are entitled to protect YOURSELF from bodily harm , NOT in most cases your property . again in some states you can legally shoot an intruder . BUt most state that you must be at risk for bodily harm . Someone moving away from you with his back towards you is not putting you at risk of bodily harm..in fact in most cases it is you he is trying to keep from harming him...of course he has been caught at a crime and has good reason to run when a fellow with a shotgun finds him in his house...BUT he has been guilty up to then of breaking and entering ..maybe just criminal tresspass and possibly robbery or burglary...show me under what law that calls for the death penalty.
Even if a police officer catches him in your house he cant shoot him unless he attacks the officer ...If he runs away the officer gets to chase him .
only if a felony was commited and others are at risk can deadly force be applied . Be preprared to prove that you were justified in using deadly force...alive or dead the police are going to want to know the circumstances . Watch the news about" bad " police shootings ..they are also accountable .
We have courts and judges and the rule of law to give us a veneer of civilization ..we pay for a " Police force " .
We have to be reasonable about shooting people ..think about it .


Or I'll bust a cap in your gas

It wasn't really a question, more of a statement

Also, what if that person has a gun and you just happen to come up behind then. You ARE in danger of bodily harm if that person has a firearm or knife. So you shoot them in the back. I find that to be fine since they were carrying a firearm.

Also, if you just let the person escape, what's to stop then from coming back again?

 

[ledhed]

I for one like the idea of not putting myself at risk by ambushing a potential threat...after all better to be tried by twelve then carried by six.
But you mentioned no gun or weapon...just " intruder " .

In my home we are all trained to stay in the room we are in and let the criminal come to you...it would be a botch to shoot my wife or son while I was looking around for a nitwit....so no one is to look only to wait if possible use a phone ..at the last resort you use what you have to .
And yes my wife has been warned not to shoot me for comming home late.
I left a note on the event of my untimely death at hands of a pissed off wife ..that I was innocent.

 

[Kylehnat]

Also, what if that person has a gun and you just happen to come up behind then. You ARE in danger of bodily harm if that person has a firearm or knife.

But then you get into another grey area. How do you know that they have a firearm or knife? On the other hand, how are you supposed to find this out? AHHHHHH!!! Conundrums!!!

 

[Swift]

But then you get into another grey area. How do you know that they have a firearm or knife? On the other hand, how are you supposed to find this out? AHHHHHH!!! Conundrums!!!

If he has something that looks like a weapon then I think that we should be in the same realm as police and be able to use deadly force. If you point a watergune at a policeman and he shoots you, it's rough, but it was your fault for being stupid and pointed something that looks like a gun at a police officer.

I do see your point though and Ledhed's general plan makes a lot of sense.

 

[Super T]

And yes my wife has been warned not to shoot me for coming home late.
I left a note on the event of my untimely death at hands of a pissed off wife ..that I was innocent.

My wife bought a German Shepherd for that, if I try getting home after the midnight the damn dog won't let me in without trying to tear me a new one!

 

[ledhed]

a long time ago I was looking at the wrong end of a .357 magnum in the hands of a nervouse and scared wife person... We had to discuss that a bit..
I call first NOW anyway...💡 At any rate ...with my house you need not walk up a scary flight of steps..unlike my apartment at the time...after I changed my shorts I sort of understood...but still 158 grain hollow points + P ? I guess I should be glad she hates the shotguns .

 

[Super T]

Yikes...And I thought I had trouble with dog teeth??