In fact, it is acceptable in England, and the rest of Great Britain today. It's so acceptable that England has substantially more crimes of robbery, assault, and other crimes of violence other than murder than does America.

Are you sure? I don't know the similarities and differences between American and British justice systems, but here in America, the jury will hear only the evidence allowed.

A few years ago, the mail carrier at some of my rental units was gone for a few weeks. When he returned, I found out he was on jury duty, and quite disturbed by the experience.

He gave me a quick synopsis and asked if I would say guilty or innocent. "Not enough information." I asked some questions, and he said "I can't tell you that".

"Based on what you told me, there's not enough evidence to convict."

"That's what we did."

Then after the defendant was found "Not Guilty", the jury was then told about a few facts that were found not admissable in court, and about his long criminal record that also was kept from them.

Had they known ALL the facts, this creep would have easily been found guilty, and put away for a long time. Instead, we have a bad guy back out on the streets, and twelve people very dissolusioned with the justice system.

Sorry, Rodeo, but just because the jury said so does not make it right.

And if what happened is what the law says should happen, it seems to me, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of this case, that the law as it exists is pretty poorly written.

The public outcry is legitimate. We send people to congress to address the needs of the country. New laws are written and passed (Too many). Old laws are modified or withdrawn. Here is one case where the we need either some missing pieces of the puzzle to justify this travesty, or, a change in the law as it is currently written.

I don't know what to tell you, except that common law jurisprudence has developed a jury system that works better than any alternative of which I'm aware.

Certainly better than posting a one-sided story on the internet and letting people vote innocent of guilty.

As to what evidence the jury gets to hear, you are right, not everything comes in. If someone is on trial for tax evasion, the jury will not hear the details of his messy divorce, no matter how badly he treated his former wife. And they won't hear that Joe down the street considers him shifty and dishonest. Those are called "rules of evidence," developed over centuries to let in relevant evidence and keep out irrelevant and prejudicial and unreliable evidence.

We are not protecting burglars by making sure people don't shoot them in the back as they run away, we are protecting society.

I understand that some people will never get that.

Yes, so they can come back & rob someone else, maybe even kill them. You are a lawyer, correct? Just how many of these criminals have you kept out of prison? How many people who killed the criminals have you tried to have locked up??

Not interested in a dialog with you, spew your hate and intolerance elsewhere.

So it is bad to hate criminals??? How many people have been robbed or killed because YOU got a POS criminal out of jail on a technicality?? I love to see what kind if tolerance you would have for a criminal that could be breaking into you lotus or 911 right now?? You are in fact protecting burglars while you destroy society. If people realize that the punishment is swift & harsh when they commit crimes, they would think twice about it. BTW, I'm not going anywhere nore am I spewing hate and intolerance, I'm spewing right & wrong, something liberal don't understand!! http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1158005185.jpg

Yes...they did break into his house and he did shoot them....what is the problem with that? You can do that in most states in the US, save a few like the People's Republics of Massa-2-sheets.
In Florida, not only would the old farmer NOT have gone to prison or even have been charged, the burglar's family would have been barred from suing him. FURTHERMORE......and this is the part I REALLY like, the burglar who lived would have been charged and most certainly convicted of second degree MURDER in the death of his accomplice under the felony murder statute. This is one of the reasons why the rate of violent crime has gone down in the US over the last 10 years and why it has skyrocketed in the UK. I may have a little bit of an axe to grind, but I have also spoken at length to a number of Brit custom knifemakers. You cannot defend yourself with ANYTHING. If you do, it will probably be considered a weapon and you, the victim, will be arrested. You also cannot carry 90% of the little pocket knives most of us own anywhere on your person or in you vehicle. Anything that has a locking blade is a weapon. Anything over about 2 inches is a weapon.....that means the majority of Swiss Army knives and ALL of the traditonal French Opinel knives save one that doesn't have the traditional barrel lock system are weapons. Forget about your standard Buck 110 or any of the modern folders. No mace, no stun guns, and no telescoping batons, little kubotan keychain thingies, etc. And like i said, even if you use and otherwise innocuous object like a brrom handle to defend yourself, it may be construed as a weapon. What the Metropolitan Police used to say is that you are not permitted to protect yourself and your property....that is our job. Now they are saying that it is no longer out job and still not your right, so tough luck, Nigel!!!!

Not relevant in this discussion. By the way, your sig file is miles too long.

Fallacious argument. The common law jury was originally the group of witnesses that were arrayed against you. In the more modern context, the jury thatconvicted this fellow could have aquitted him in SPITE of the jury instructions, but we do not see that often except in movies. The prosecutor always trots out the old "you cannot take the law into you own hands" and "we are a nation of laws and not of men" argument and it works......and you get weepy jurors that say they wanted to let the poor old guy go free, but they couldn't...their hands were tied by the law and the court. Like I said before. In Florida, the burglar who lived would have gotten 25-life with no chance of parole for at least 22 years. And I do believe that the actual local term for those "gypsies" in England is "tinkers" or "pikers" Most of the time, they are not Romany like the European gypsies. More like the Irish "gypsy" gal who got arrested for flogging her baby in the parking lot of a Terget here in the US last year.
Oh......and by the way. It appears that the London Metropolitan Police are NOT interested in protecting society if it involves property crimes. furthermore, it would appear that British society in general is wondering whether they WANT to be "protected' in such a fashion. incidentally, if you Google it, you will discoverthat this is NOT the only case of this type that haas sprung up in the UK in the last few years. The results have generally been the same.

It appears that the facts don't bear you out.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1158006030.jpg

Anyway, I'll say it again. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves, their home, and their family. That does NOT include chasing someone down and shooting him in the back as he runs away.

LMAO.....good lawyer answer. Only one problem. Make sure you know the facts before you attempt to use them in an argument.( referrig to the issue of what constitutes a weapon in the UK. Unless you happened to have done some time at Grays, Lincoln or Middle Temple in the last couple of years, then your knowlege is NO BETTER than mine...at best!!!!) Didn't they teach you the golden rule of lawyering in whatever mail order island law school you went to? Nevr ask a question that you don'talready knw the answer to? Also....didn't your torts or civ pro prof tell you the first day of class that you should READ THE FACT PATTERN CAREFULLY? LOL. The old dude was scared, fired wildly IN HIS HOUSE and happened to hit the burglars. Shame on me if i happened to read the fact pattern wrong...anybody else see it that way?:D As for your chart, why don't you pull the figures for rates of all violent crimes for the UK over the last 10 years.....you may be surprised. Then pull the FBI figures for the same period in the US. You may be in denial after that....lol.

The jury.

Deaths due to assault are high in this country because in the areas in which most of them occur, the 20 largest cities in America; have the lowest gun ownership rates among those that live there, and among the most stringent requirements to possess a gun for defensive use, in and of itself a travesty.

Your graphic is misleading, it has little or nothing to do with the small number of people who chase down an assailant and kill them. Further, according to the Department of Justice Statistics, who do keep these records annually, the victim shoots his assailant with 80% fewer errors than the police.

That is not to say it's a good idea to to that, but if I see a man kill or shoot and wound someone, and can keep him in sight 100% of the chase time, run him down and shoot him dead, you want to charge me with a crime.

You are wrong, morally and ethically, to support such a concept.

Florida and some other states have a "forcible felony" law that says you can pop a guy who is comitting one of the crimes on the short list even if they are not directly threatening you ......up to a point. They actually have to be comitting the crime or actually harming another person, whereas when you are defending yourself, you only have to have a "reasonable belief" that you are in danger. The new Castle Dcotrine that the Brady Bunch whines about so much clarified that a bit, but there are still circumstances where not only are you off the hook criminally, but also safe from civil action if the shoot was righteous. And woudn't you know it....burglary of an occupied residence is one of the crimes on the list.......and the garage is considered to be part of the residence. So in theory, if you knew that your old infirm neighbor was home and you saw some unsavory types dressed up like the Hamburglar with burgalr tools carrying stuff out of his garage, you could go over, introduce yourself and render them......lol

Yes, that's true here as well, the Castle Doctrine Law was recently put on the books in South Carolina.

Still, I want to emphasize; being legal does not mean it's a good idea in every circumstance to use the full extent of your options. Oh the other hand, if you have to, you have to and it's good to be protected under the law.

Rodeo is clearly, wholey incapable of following this argument. One more time, it the simplest terms I can muster (and typing very slowly so he can follow along); for Rodeo's benefit:

This is not about what the law IS. It is about what the law SHOULD BE. A man should never get in more trouble for defending himself, loved ones, or property than the criminals he was defending against.

Correct.

And your point is?

It appears that you have not been paying attention.

dictum, mein herr. the way the law is written in the UK, they could have had their hands around his throat and been preparing to bugger him with a cricket bat and he still would have been convicted. The jury could not come to any other conclusion without deviating from the jury instructions

Of course not. But that isn't what happened in this case, according to any party. Of course you knew that though...