• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When does self-defence go too far?

has self defence gone too far in this instance?


  • Total voters
    33

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
23,969
Reaction score
16,640
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a story making local headlines in my region.

Personally, I think 6 guys going round to another man's house get what they deserve if they underestimate the victim's ability to defend himself and I also think the 5 year jail sentence served on Bowman was a joke.
 
If the fight had gone the other way around the defendent would have been the dead one.

This was a fight for life. It was totally premeditated by the perpetrators.
When you are armed with a crowbar in a close contact fight the desired results is obvious.
This was a fight for his life. This wasn't finding someone trying to break into your car.

In such a fight for your own life and others in the house one cannot just halt the rush of adrenaline on a split second. Yes he may have keep hitting after the victim was no longer a threat. But the adrenaline must have been so strong his own arms continued to fight. It is like being in total balls to wall fight and then stop and expect your breathing to resume back to normal 15-20 breaths per min instantly.
 
If someone crashes into your house, armed and looking dangerous, you should have every right to kill them before they kill you. But who has an axe next to their TV?
 
If someone crashes into your house, armed and looking dangerous, you should have every right to kill them before they kill you. But who has an axe next to their TV?

Apparently the judge didn't have an issue with that, so it's a moot point. It's a good thing he did.
 
Thugs vs. thug. The all got what they deserved.

I have a hard time relating to this case. I can't imagine thugs without guns, the great American equalizer. In the US, singular thug would be dead and plural thugs would become lesser in number and given a number for 30 years.
 
If someone crashes into your house, armed and looking dangerous, you should have every right to kill them before they kill you. But who has an axe next to their TV?

In a way, this makes the local/federal English justice system look bad .
The accusation was that Bowman had stolen money from one of the attacking mob.
So why did not the "victim" go to the police and press charges??
The vigilante route was dangerous, very dangerous, as it turns out.
As "reasonable force" is not defined, and may be impossible to legally define, I'd say that the police were wrong in treating Bowman as a criminal.
 
This is silly. People come into the man's house, he defends it, and he's punished for it? Bad form.
 
This is complete bull****, he shouldn't go to jail for defending himself.
 
But who has an axe next to their TV?

True dat.

Mine is right next to my grinder, which is placed at a more appropriate spot in the living room -- right next to me as I post at debatepolitics dot com.
 
This is silly. People come into the man's house, he defends it, and he's punished for it? Bad form.

Yes, -30 points for the judge.
 
I say that he is completely innocent and within his rights to defend himself against armed men using an ax. They trespassed into his home with weapons and began fighting. It would be a massive injustice for punishing this man due to the fact that he wasn't going to let armed trespassers murder him. This is simply insane.
 
This is bull ****, the judge and jury should be ashamed of themselves unless there something Im missing something. A gang froces their way into my home with weapons. I immediately consider my life in danger and them to be crazy. They can no longer be trusted and as long as they are in my home they are a threat and I dont stop and until their bodies stop twitching.
 
Just from what I read, this is a travesty. How can any juror pass such judgement? I'm sure it is easy to sit comfortably in a seat and talk about what should have been done, but when you are spontaneously attacked by six strangers things aren't going to go perfectly. The man defended himself, and nothing I read suggests otherwise.
 
I can't even fathom this scenario. Living where I do, I can shoot to kill any person who poses an imminent threat to me in my home. Unless the douche is shot in the back, I'm pretty much safe from criminal and civil suits regarding his death. Imminent threat also doesn't mean the guy must have a visible weapon (or any weapon at all).
 

He got 5 years for that!? I mean, I know people want to bitch about the US and the problems we have...but we don't give people 5 years for defending themselves. That's ****ed up.
 
his mistake was having an axe and allowing the intruder to survive to subsequently bring a suit as an aggrieved party
 
Like everyone else here, I'm aghast! When faced with six people, the guy would have to had summoned untold strength...something...in defending himself. Anger. That's it, and once they were subdued, how does anyone turn that off? I saw nothing in the two articles to suggest the circumstances were other than how he presented it. The laws in the UK would seem to be a bit different from here.
 
IC, I have a few questions.

Why didn't they other five idiots just run when he axed his first victim?

I think that's when self-defence goes too far...when it ceases to be defensive and you are attacking/pursuing someone who is trying to escape.
 
IC, I have a few questions.

Why didn't they other five idiots just run when he axed his first victim?

I think that's when self-defence goes too far...when it ceases to be defensive and you are attacking/pursuing someone who is trying to escape.

Dammit you turned me into a Brit...
 
I hope we are missing something here that the jury was informed of. As it is stated currently, it is a miscarriage of justice.
 
The key point:

...Bowman’s decision to continue attacking Hall after he ceased to be a threat...

To make any meaningful assessment of the situation, you need the particulars of this.
 
The key point:



To make any meaningful assessment of the situation, you need the particulars of this.

This still changes nothing for me.
If he is in my house he is a threat. He showed up with intent to kill me and beat me to death as far as Im concerned and its not my job to "go easy" because he is LOSING and getting his ass kicked after trying to kill me.

Now if I chased him down the street two blocks and buried my AXE in the back of his head 4 times OK, but as long as he is in my house he can not be trusted and my life is in danger IMO.
 
This whole story is whacked and the writing in the article is atrocious...what do they do...have 9th graders proofread their articles???

This whole thing reads like a bad Monty Python skit. Honestly, I'm surprised on of the intruderwasn'tnt carrying a live badger. So...to the question...it depends on the circumstances...doesnt it? If dood knocked everyone down...everyone that could had retreated, then walked over to first dood and said "here beeyatch" and whacked him in the head while he was down for the count already, then conviction is probably appropriate. If it was in the mêlée phase, then he should be given a medal and the others should be given an additional 5 years just for being stupid.
 
Last edited:
This still changes nothing for me.
If he is in my house he is a threat.
Not if, say, he is on the floor, unconscious due to blood loss and shock.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…