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.