| ArchangelMadzz said
And yet I've read the paper a number of times in the apst to find that people can still get sued or jailed despite doing what they had to do.
Usually in those cases it's because the threat was already subdued, it becomes assault when you attack with no immediate danger.
That's like asking for equal fisticuffs in war or fighting, except in the ring there are rules to obide by but in actual survival combat the rules aren't always there to save you.
No its not, it's saying of someone attacks you subdue them with the force they used on you, so if they didn't use a weapon you can't start beating them up with a weapon. Or if someone punches you you can't stab them with a knife unless you thought they were going to kill you.
DOes that person learn a lesson from the assult charge though?, what about threats of the the electric chair for other types of assault?, back in medieval times threats of greater punishments and then carrying them out more or less had an effect on people, but now you can get all sorts of charges, come out of prison and do it all over again which shows that jail time doesn't always work either.
Now you're talking about the prison system so that's not really anything to do with the self defence laws, when it comes to punishment vs rehabilitation, rehabilitation always had the lower re offending rate. Look at Scandinavian prisons for example.
I know you didn't but you imply that the current status is good enough and isn't doing much wrong despite what we're currently seeing.
No I don't imply any such thing, I'm stating what the law is and why they would punish someone for tieing up and torturing someone who broke into their house.
|
