"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
m...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think
the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting
dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of
plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or
property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder
to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to
scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

Go on then.

Others in the gang have mentioned a few genuine possibilities already;
but here goes:

My mother trips on a loose paving slab, grabs the nearest thing for
support, and a rusty iron spike goes through her hand.

Scary MIL, is she 9ft tall? Otherwise I fail to see how she'd put her hand
on top of a 6ft wall.


You're walking down the road in the teeth of a rainstorm, and your
expensive umbrella or trench-coat (I know you'd have nothing but the
best) catches on a spike and gets ripped.

Could happen on a low lying bush, tough luck.


I'm steering an uncertain course back from the boozer one night and
some part of my marinaded anatomy connects with the projections;
fortunately, I don't bleed to death, but it's touch and go when I get
septicaemia.

What, on the top of a 6ft wall? Must be a *very* uncertain course


I'm away on holiday, so the vicar can't ask me if it's ok to pop into
my garden to retrieve his hat, which has just been blown in there by
the wind.


Well he should, just because you are out doesnt (shouldnt?) give someone
the right to go onto your property. Next time he should hang on to his
baseball cap or better yet not wear one.

Etc, pretty well ad infinitum: these things do happen.

Mike.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

FF wrote in message . ..
On 1 Jan 2004 04:13:06 -0800, (Mike Lyle) wrote:
[...]
Etc, pretty well ad infinitum: these things do happen.

Yes they do, but what do we lose if we sue every time?

Have it your own way: but don't blame me if you *do* get sued. Of
course, as you know perfectly well, there's a lot to lose if you sue
without a reasonable case, and sometimes even if you *have* a
reasonable case: we shouldn't be misled by the occasional absurd one
which gets to the newspapers.

My point is that it's rash to assume that setting traps will catch
only the nasty. Which is why it's against the law.

Mike.

The message
from (Steve Harris) contains these words:
In article ,
(Rusty Hinge) wrote:

Most of my books are still in store, but I can assure you that the
barrister who wrote the one I'm quoting from (albeit from memory) is
not one to make an unsubstantiated statement.

I think you should make getting that book out of store a priority :-)

The priority is to find somewhere in this small 2-down, 2-up cottage to
put, and then make about thirty feet of bookshelves....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message . ..
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
m...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think
the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting
dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of
plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or
property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder
to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to
scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

Go on then.

Others in the gang have mentioned a few genuine possibilities already;
but here goes:

My mother trips on a loose paving slab, grabs the nearest thing for
support, and a rusty iron spike goes through her hand.

Scary MIL, is she 9ft tall? Otherwise I fail to see how she'd put her hand
on top of a 6ft wall.

We're generalizing he I'm sure you know the difference between
general principles and specific instances. Your experience may be
different, but I have from time to time seen walls and fences which
were less than six feet tall, and average-sized mothers who could
reach over their heads.

You're walking down the road in the teeth of a rainstorm, and your
expensive umbrella or trench-coat (I know you'd have nothing but the
best) catches on a spike and gets ripped.

Could happen on a low lying bush, tough luck.

And if it's your bush and it's dangerous, you may be liable.

I'm steering an uncertain course back from the boozer one night and
some part of my marinaded anatomy connects with the projections;
fortunately, I don't bleed to death, but it's touch and go when I get
septicaemia.

What, on the top of a 6ft wall? Must be a *very* uncertain course

See above.

I'm away on holiday, so the vicar can't ask me if it's ok to pop into
my garden to retrieve his hat, which has just been blown in there by
the wind.


Well he should, just because you are out doesnt (shouldnt?) give someone
the right to go onto your property. Next time he should hang on to his
baseball cap or better yet not wear one.

In the real world we have to think as though in the real world.
Personally I'd rather a fellow-citizen got his hat back in good order
than get on my high horse about my property -- especially if I was at
Disneyland or wherever you go at the time. And if it were not a hat,
but something which might do damage to my property, such as (as
happens to me now and then) a herd of cattle or a compulsively digging
dog, I'd be most annoyed if the owner *didn't* retrieve it at once and
without initial formality.

You don't have to *like* the existence of laws controlling your use of
dangerous objects; but they do exist, and it's no great intellectual
strain to see why.

Mike.

(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Steve Harris wrote:
In article ,
(Jaques d'Alltrades) wrote:

it is the duty of a citizen to try to apprehend someone in commission
of a serious crime *BY ANY MEANS AT HIS DISPOSAL*.

There is no such general legal duty. There very few situations where the
citizen is legally obliged to take an active part in crime fighting.
They are unlikely to occur in a garden.

And, in all cases, you are required to use only reasonable force,
according to the circumstances. If those burglars had gone tooled
up, Martin would never have been charged.

What the hanging, flogging and burglar-shooting brigade don't realise
is that the doctrine of reasonable force is primarily to protect the
innocent. If burglars know that they are likely to be shot at whim,
some will not do it and others will carry a gun and shoot first.
Those are, after all, the only rational behaviours.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Of course. It is no accident that some one with a Cambridge University
email address like Nick is saying this. It is a classic example of the
hang 'em and flog 'em brigade being unable to see the broader picture
and having a mode of thinking which research has shown is associated
with poorer performance in intelligence tests. :-)

The concept of reasonable force is an essential one. The penalty for
burglary is NOT death.

Let me give you a few examples why someone might enter a house without
malicious intent.

They could be fleeing from an attacker.

They could be under the effect of drugs. (Most people on this group
will use a
recreational drug called alcohol.)

They could be a child or a retarded adult with a child's mind.
(For example a senile old person who lived in the house 60 years
before.)

The same thing applies to having dangerous items on a boundary. They
are blind as to the intent of the person crossing the boundary.
Several of the above would also apply there.

We don't want a situation like the "Merkins" have where there is a
"right to arm bears" :-) That just leads to more innocent people
getting shot.

Neil Jones
http://www.butterflyguy.com

The message
from (Neil Jones) contains these words:
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
...

And, in all cases, you are required to use only reasonable force,
according to the circumstances. If those burglars had gone tooled
up, Martin would never have been charged.

What the hanging, flogging and burglar-shooting brigade don't realise
is that the doctrine of reasonable force is primarily to protect the
innocent. If burglars know that they are likely to be shot at whim,
some will not do it and others will carry a gun and shoot first.
Those are, after all, the only rational behaviours.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Of course. It is no accident that some one with a Cambridge University
email address like Nick is saying this. It is a classic example of the
hang 'em and flog 'em brigade being unable to see the broader picture
and having a mode of thinking which research has shown is associated
with poorer performance in intelligence tests. :-)

Nick is one of the last people I would accuse of being part of the hang
'em and flog 'em brigade.

I would advocate that you do a little more lurking before you label
everyone who posts here.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from (Neil Jones) contains these words:
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
...

And, in all cases, you are required to use only reasonable force,
according to the circumstances. If those burglars had gone tooled
up, Martin would never have been charged.

What the hanging, flogging and burglar-shooting brigade don't realise
is that the doctrine of reasonable force is primarily to protect the
innocent. If burglars know that they are likely to be shot at whim,
some will not do it and others will carry a gun and shoot first.
Those are, after all, the only rational behaviours.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Of course. It is no accident that some one with a Cambridge University
email address like Nick is saying this. It is a classic example of the
hang 'em and flog 'em brigade being unable to see the broader picture
and having a mode of thinking which research has shown is associated
with poorer performance in intelligence tests. :-)

Nick is one of the last people I would accuse of being part of the hang
'em and flog 'em brigade.

I would advocate that you do a little more lurking before you label
everyone who posts here.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Rusty Hinge wrote in message ...
The message
from (Neil Jones) contains these words:
(Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
...

And, in all cases, you are required to use only reasonable force,
according to the circumstances. If those burglars had gone tooled
up, Martin would never have been charged.

What the hanging, flogging and burglar-shooting brigade don't realise
is that the doctrine of reasonable force is primarily to protect the
innocent. If burglars know that they are likely to be shot at whim,
some will not do it and others will carry a gun and shoot first.
Those are, after all, the only rational behaviours.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Of course. It is no accident that some one with a Cambridge University
email address like Nick is saying this. It is a classic example of the
hang 'em and flog 'em brigade being unable to see the broader picture
and having a mode of thinking which research has shown is associated
with poorer performance in intelligence tests. :-)

Nick is one of the last people I would accuse of being part of the hang
'em and flog 'em brigade.

I would advocate that you do a little more lurking before you label
everyone who posts here.

I think you're being unfair there, Rusty: Neil seems to me to be
*agreeing* with Nick, and contrasting his remarks with the hang 'em
and flog 'ems.

Mike.

The message
from (Mike Lyle) contains these words:

Of course. It is no accident that some one with a Cambridge University
email address like Nick is saying this. It is a classic example of the
hang 'em and flog 'em brigade being unable to see the broader picture
and having a mode of thinking which research has shown is associated
with poorer performance in intelligence tests. :-)

Nick is one of the last people I would accuse of being part of the hang
'em and flog 'em brigade.

I would advocate that you do a little more lurking before you label
everyone who posts here.

I think you're being unfair there, Rusty: Neil seems to me to be
*agreeing* with Nick, and contrasting his remarks with the hang 'em
and flog 'ems.

Well, I read it as if Nick was being lumped in with the hang 'em and
flog 'em brigade, and I would place him a tad to the left of Genghis
That^^^^Blair innit.

ITWSBT.....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: Rusty Hinge
Date: 03/01/2004 12:06 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Well, I read it as if Nick was being lumped in with the hang 'em and
flog 'em brigade, and I would place him a tad to the left of Genghis
That^^^^Blair innit.


Is it possible, these days, to place anyone to the RIGHT of Blair, even Dracula
is showing his softer side? Ok, maybe Blunkett
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: depends on what you want it changed into!

On 03 Jan 2004 12:26:56 GMT, emon (Rhiannon S)
wrote:

Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: Rusty Hinge
Date: 03/01/2004 12:06 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Well, I read it as if Nick was being lumped in with the hang 'em and
flog 'em brigade, and I would place him a tad to the left of Genghis
That^^^^Blair innit.


Is it possible, these days, to place anyone to the RIGHT of Blair, even Dracula
is showing his softer side? Ok, maybe Blunkett

Blunkett's dog is to the right of Blunkett.
--
Martin

On 03 Jan 2004 12:26:56 GMT, emon (Rhiannon S)
wrote:

Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: Rusty Hinge
Date: 03/01/2004 12:06 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Well, I read it as if Nick was being lumped in with the hang 'em and
flog 'em brigade, and I would place him a tad to the left of Genghis
That^^^^Blair innit.


Is it possible, these days, to place anyone to the RIGHT of Blair, even Dracula
is showing his softer side? Ok, maybe Blunkett

Blunkett's dog is to the right of Blunkett.
--
Martin

The message
from emon (Rhiannon S) contains these words:
Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: Rusty Hinge
Date: 03/01/2004 12:06 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Well, I read it as if Nick was being lumped in with the hang 'em and
flog 'em brigade, and I would place him a tad to the left of Genghis
That^^^^Blair innit.


Is it possible, these days, to place anyone to the RIGHT of Blair,
even Dracula
is showing his softer side? Ok, maybe Blunkett

Dreadful thought: I've Blunkett's dog to the right of him........

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from emon (Rhiannon S) contains these words:
Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: Rusty Hinge
Date: 03/01/2004 12:06 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Well, I read it as if Nick was being lumped in with the hang 'em and
flog 'em brigade, and I would place him a tad to the left of Genghis
That^^^^Blair innit.


Is it possible, these days, to place anyone to the RIGHT of Blair,
even Dracula
is showing his softer side? Ok, maybe Blunkett

Dreadful thought: I've Blunkett's dog to the right of him........

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from martin contains these words:

Blunkett's dog is to the right of Blunkett.

Hootering Rays!

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/