Shanghai and Nanchang. Nope - I have never been panhandled. I presume the inner country is much different. The only highmaen I have seen is open urination along the highways. Maybe you are right, they don't mess with foreigners and the press is surpressed. Most of my time is in those 2 cities. But I do sense the fear of messing with the government is no win.

here's hopin'. ;)

d.

Yes we do. They are feral rats. They live in ghetto housing estates that I am paying for.

Rick, I think you live in some kind of a bubble.

No, he lives in the United States of America where we don't have 10 year olds running around like feral rats.
We have gangs in the inner cities and some of them may start out young, but it isn't anywhere near like what you describe.

Everything you wrote there is not true.

The Criminal Law Act (1967) provides:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
(Criminal Law Act 1967)

To say breaking and entering is not a crime in the UK is also patent nonsense.

The Theft Act (1968) provides:

"9 Burglary.

(1)A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a)he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm."

However, if you're just being ironic and I missed that, my apologies. :D

Regards,

d.

Hey Dienstuhr, we have the written law and how it really works too and they're two very different things. All I know is what I've read and I have no reason to doubt it. Hey, it's illegal in AZ for criminals to sue their victims if those victims legally injured them in defense of life or limb. But those lawsuits happen everyday and bankrupt the victims before they get tossed out. We have plenty of Amendments to our Constitution that are routinely ignored by the federal gov't. and several states. But anyone could cite them and say it can't happen here because it's written law. Ha!

Oh boy. All I can say is, try breaking into someone's house in the UK and when you get arrested, tell them it's not a crime because you read it somewhere. Good luck! SmileWavy

I have read of such a case before. But it was a tour bus or coach they broke into. Maybe that doesn't qualify as a residence in the UK, but there were people living in it (touring musicians) and the intruder was let go without charge because he was stopped before he had a chance to steal anything. Anyway, most of what I write here I wish to be very wrong.

I have never seen anything like you have described in England. Every place has its homeless. Have you any pics or links to this town of shacks?

As if you ever visit ghetto housing estates in the US. You strike me as the kind of guy who never travels more than 10 miles from your own safe home bubble.

Oh and dont even bother with your Dork photo.

1. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet (or anywhere else for that matter)

2. Every case turns on its own particular facts. Just because (for example) one person kills another and is acquitted of murder, does not mean "killing someone is no longer a crime".

3. In this case, your wish was granted. :)

Cheers

d.

I thought this was a pretty good read on self-defence law in the UK.

The right of self-defence in England | England calling

This has to be a joke.

Amazon.co.uk Movers and Shakers: The biggest gainers in Sports & Leisure sales rank over the past 24 hours

With a very selective use of facts to be borne in mind.

The emotive language used for example relating to Tony Martin omits the fact that he shot the burgler in the back, outside as the burgler was running off. This, perhaps made more on an impression than the self defence argument.

From memory, Kenneth Noyles may not have been the victim of a road rage incident, more on the instigating side and having recieved a beating, returned to his car to find a weapon with which to continue the fight when the real way out of the threat was his Land Rover Discovery....

The use of these two examples really does his rationale no favours....

A pretty good read Rick? It is basically a Neo fascist National Front website.
You are a pretty good guy with a good taste in watches ;) From now on why dont you ask questions to people that actually live in the UK.

I don't know how that article has anything to do with neo-fascist anything. I couldn't care less about the writer's political views on other issues. He seemed to have some reasonable beefs and suggestions about self-defence law. The other BBC and such sites I read all seemed to say the same thing, reporting that the law is fine as is or needs clarification, but not changing.

Its not very often Rick and I agree on much but I think that article was at least an interesting read.

It's very difficult to defend yourself and your property in the UK. You can, but as the article says, only to a certain point and that point is open to debate. There needs to be a little more leniency in favour of the victim when trying such cases.

The best advice I ever heard from a police officer in the UK after a break in, was that if it happens again, and we want to deal with it ourselves, not a problem, but don't call the cops afterwards.

As for Tony Martin, why shouldn't he shoot a burglar in the back as he runs away. As far as I'm concerned a burglar leaves his rights at the property line.

The link cites exactly two cases from English jurisprudence. It might have been a "pretty good read" but is not a compelling argument for legislative change, nor is it a thorough analysis.

One case was from 2001 in which a jury found that the killer "executed" the burglar with an illegally possessed shotgun. The conviction was later reduced to manslaughter and the killer set free after three years imprisonment. He later signed a deal with the Daily Mirror to tell his story in exchange for 125,000 pounds :(

The other was a case from 2000, in which a career criminal and "hard man" was involved in a road rage incident and stabbed an unarmed man to death:

"Stephen Cameron, 21, died after being knifed through the heart and liver when a "road rage" confrontation off the M25 turned to lethal violence. As he lay dying on the road, with a terrified Ms Cable screaming and crying, Mr Noye walked away smiling, the court was told. He admits stabbing Mr Cameron, who was unarmed, but claims self defence.

The court was told that after the killing Mr Noye, carrying a briefcase full of cash, fled by helicopter to France and then a private jet to Spain where he remained in hiding for two years. While fighting extradition after his arrest, Mr Noye, 52, claimed he had not been involved in the stabbing at all, but has since admitted wielding the knife which was plunged seven inches into [Cameron's] chest, the court was told."

These cases would hardly seem to demonstrate that the UK lacks a "self-defence" concept in law. Clearly the triers of fact in these cases found that the response of the killer was disproportionate in the extreme to the danger posed by the assailant, and by any rational view this is a reasonable test for self-defence. Reading the background on the two cases I think the courts got it right both times. In the first case you have a mentally unstable individual lying in wait for an intruder and killing him. In the second case you have a career criminal carrying an illegal weapon and stabbing a man to death in a fistfight.

Do you maintain that any victim of crime is justified in killing the criminal? God help you if you ever get lost and have to stop by a stranger's house for directions:

Yoshihiro Hattori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Mr. Hattori was allegedly "trespassing on private property" when shot to death by the homeowner. He had mistakenly gone to the wrong address for a Hallowe'en party)

Cheers

d.

There are plenty of guns in L.A., yet there was lots of looting and mayhem after the King verdict.

There are plenty of guns in New Orleans, yet there was plenty of mayhem and violence after Katrina.

There are few guns in Japan, yet there was no rioting or looting after the earthquake.

Private ownership of guns does not make a society less violent or less prone to rioting, looting, etc. It is the nature of the society that determines that.

In the UK, suppose lots of people had guns? Well, some of the looters and rioters would have guns. And some of the shopkeepers and homeowners would have guns. The rioting would still happen, there'd simply be some guns involved.

Obviously, if my neighborhood is engulfed in looting and rioting, I personally want to have a gun - doesn't mean it will make a whit of difference outside of a 20 foot radius of me.

Even in AZ you'll probably have some splainin' to do if you shoot someone in the back who's fleeing your house. But the law in most states is pretty clear on justifiable use of deadly force. And in the really egregious cases, there's always jury nullification. I don't know that there's any law in the US requiring proportionality of force when attacked. As that article mentions, how is a victim to know how far an assailant is willing to go?

I wouldn't be justified in shooting someone for sucker punching me in the jaw. But if they kept attacking me and I was unable to stop them, then I would be justified in shooting them. If their friend or friends joined in, then I have the "disparity of force" defense and can kill them all, whether they're armed or not. And if they had any kind of weapon, that would be pretty much open and shut in AZ in my favor. The problem is when the law or at least the normal practice of it is so slanted against the law-abiding victim, that the bad guys know they really have nothing to fear or lose.

God there's a lot of rubbish on this thread. In the UK you are perfectly entitled to defend yourself to the death. You just can't kill someone for the sake of it which I think is quite a good happy medium. If you kill a burglar you would have to justify that your life was at risk.

I am probably rare in the UK in that I have licensed firearms in my home. A 6.5x55 rifle and 3 shotguns - 12g, 20g and a .410. If I heard someone in my home in the night, I'd hit my alarms and round up the kids into my bedroom and wait for the police to arrive. Should someone come through the bedroom door though they'd get both barrels. I couldn't use the 6.5mm SE as I have to keep the ammo in a seperate safe from the rifle. I'd expect to get a good questioning from the police, but also I have faith that I wouldn't be charged.

I have been to Bristol many times and never seen any shacks where people cook meat they've hunted. I think you're mixing the UK with parts of Africa.

In the UK we have sensible laws, if someone attacks you and you kill them without malice of forethought and withot premeditation (i.e. carrying a weapon) you'll be OK. if you go out looking for trouble you'll be charged.

Bit tough to justify it as 'self defence'...the guy is running away from you..
Its a bit like the case not that long ago when the burgler was chased down on the street and beaten by the home owner and his friends...

The burgler may have lost his rights, but you have not gained the right to be take the law into your own hands...

Not at all. But it's the general rule here that, if you break into someone's house, you're betting your life that the homeowner is unarmed. Break into my house wearing a costume or not, you'll face determined and armed resistance, law be damned. I can't say I'd shoot some kid who looked barely tough enough to fight his way out of a paper bag, even though crossing the front door threshold would give me legal justification. But anyone dumb enough to break into a house in AZ can be assumed to be up to no good or criminally insane, because it's a suicide mission. It does happen and we do have our share of justified shootings here. That shooting in LA was a tragedy. I don't remember the facts of the case, but it was a tragedy no law would have prevented.

there is a dirt bike path down by the river. There were little shacks set up in one area and I went down to see what they were. I am sorry you have never seen them.

There was also a guy at a bar in bristol who had a knife. A small one about 3" blade. He took it out and a bunch of people in the bar just freaked the hell out. They called the cops and when they arrived the guy tried to throw it. Aparently the police thought he was pulling it on them so they beat the crap out of him with their night sticks.

I had been drinking the cask ale and continued to do so. That shyt is good and I wish we had it here.

Is it really different anywhere in the US?

What you describe is how it is in Oregon, and how it is in California, liberal states and all - is it otherwise in any state of the union?

Even the infamous Bernard Goetz case, he was only convicted of possessing an unlicensed firearm (which he unquestionably had done). He was acquitted of all charges resulting from shooting people with it.

I'm sure you are right MFAFF.

I just wish the UK (and canada for that matter) would take much harder line on criminals.

In the UK this week, a guy finally got ten years for beating a 51 year old alcoholic so severely, that the 51 year old will no long be able to live on his own. The assailant had 144 previous convictions! What was he doing on the street even?!

His defense lawyer stated that he only had six previous convictions for violent crimes. Like that's a defense!

He will be out in 5 if he can keep out of trouble in jail.

144 previous. How is that acceptable?

Agreed..

As it is here....

You don't... but the examples given are not 'self defence'....and so its a red herring argument...

OK....if you were to return to your car to get that gun and then return to the fight would you be justified...or would you be expected to take responsibility for your on safety and get away....

Law abiding in the cases mentionned is pretty damn thin.

So for someone who wants to get killed, this would be a good idea?

Only the English could make self defense law "extremely complex".

Here in the U.S. it's plain and simple: Defending yourself, your family, your property, another person's life or aiding Law Enforcement in detaining/stopping a suspect are A-OK. In fact, many states have laws expressly saying these actions are OK.

And Rick, I would ease up on the use of "Kill" in your argument. It is not a requirement to shoot to kill when defending life, limb or property. Sometimes foreigners who do not understand that sometimes merely drawing or possessing a firearm is enough to defuse a situation from becoming potentially deadly. Those instances are rarely, if ever, documented.

Agreed, and make prison a tad more spartan than the 'holiday' it appears to ahve become...

Hmm...6 violent are more worrying than the 136 others.....mind you the money it takes to keep these people in holiday institutions means we are being robbed and raped one way or another....

I wouldn't return to my car, as I always have a sidearm on my person when in public. Though, obviously, being able to flee is the best option and it could be a viable option if I'm alone. Having a wife or child by my side takes that option off the table.

In fact, I did get a knife pulled on me once and was able to get to my car before he gave chase. I was unarmed because I was in the police state or NJ, where I'd have gone to jail for having the means of defending myself. When I immediately reported it to the police station less than a mile away, they were totally uninterested and told me I had to go to another station as the incident occured across the township line. Second police agency also didn't seem to want to go out in the rain and find the guy.

Now, had I been in VA (where I lived then) when that happened, I'd have surely been armed. While I probably would not have shot the guy (it wasn't necessary), I'd have been justified and I certainly would have held him at gunpoint and called the police. It's not that I want to make an incident out of it. But such thugs absolutely will do that again and they need to be stopped. When it happened in NJ, I knew exactly where the guy lived (they all live in the notorious apt. complex in that town) and he was on foot walking that direction. Would have been a very easy bust, an open and shut weapons possession and assault charge and possibly prevented someone from getting hurt by this thug in the future.

If you're gonna shoot, you have to shoot to kill. If you shoot to wound, you're proving you were not in real danger of life or limb. Ditto for firing warning shots. (Warning shots got an otherwise justifiable shooting defendant seven years in the joint in AZ a while back) This goes for the police too. They don't shoot to wound. That stuff only happens in the movies. Plenty of defensive shoots are accidentally non-fatal, but if you ever try to shoot someone with the intention of only wounding them, you'll certainly be sued into poverty and you might go to jail too. Besides, I wouldn't want a bad guy living to testify against me in court.

Is it any different in the UK?

Can you do me a favour and read this Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

These are the guidelines as issued by the Crown Prosecution Service. They decide who gets prosecuted.

Where is it different to the US?
Rick, find time to read through it ( a factual and legal document) and tell me what is wrong with it.

Scott, as I said in a previous post, what's written and how it gets carried out are often very different. We also have a lot of very reasonable laws that get really perverted by ambitious lawyers and prosecutors. Read the 10th Amendment to our Constitution and tell me it still matter to the folks it was meant to restrain.

So what you are now saying............................

Is that the laws are essentially the same, but sometimes the outcomes are a bit different than you might expect after going through the legal system.

And it works that way in both the US and the UK.

Got it.

So why the criticism and ranting on this thread about how the UK is f*cked up and the US is so much better?

Not that we haven't heard that from you before. I remember your thread on how Germany was so screwed up and you couldn't understand why they liked it tha way.:rolleyes:

This is what I heard on the radio...

‪Ali G - Iran vs. Iraq‬‏ - YouTube

All of the people being interviewed sounded just as intelligent as Ali G...

MFAFF, though I listen to BBC radio I'd rather read your take on the "why and what" of the situation. Why is this happening and what do they want?

Uh, no, I didn't say the laws were the same at all. Did you mean to comment on someone else's post? I said laws are written a lot differently than they are interpreted by courts or put into practice.

You're way off base on my comments on Germany too. That's really one of your most ignorant comments ever. But go ahead. You've been constipated for a few weeks, so feel free to take a dump on this thread like all the others you chime in on.

Not to him. He thinks it's fact. :-)

I'm a little amused that in a world this violent so many think more guns would be the answer.

I'd like to see some data... # of assaults thwarted by having a gun v. # of kids shot by a sibling/friend playing with a gun in one year.

I'm no liberal, but I've seen too many young men die in the trauma bay in my short career. Sure, there are all kinds of social issues, we all know that, but I get tired of seeing it. Unnecessary death and serious injury.