If only British citizens had something to protect themselves....

[Tanick]

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.

[MFAFF]

Originally Posted by andyt11

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.

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...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by dienstuhr

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.

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.

[slakjaw]

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.

[jyl]

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?

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

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.

[andyt11]

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?

[MFAFF]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Even in AZ you'll probably have some splainin' to do if you shoot someone in the back who's fleeing your house.

Agreed..

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But the law in most states is pretty clear on justifiable use of deadly force.

As it is here....

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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?

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

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

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....

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

Law abiding in the cases mentionned is pretty damn thin.

[slakjaw]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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..

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

[Brando]

Originally Posted by dienstuhr

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!

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.

[MFAFF]

Originally Posted by andyt11

I'm sure you are right MFAFF.

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

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

Originally Posted by andyt11

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?

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....

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

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....

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.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Brando

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.

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.

[scottbombedout]

Originally Posted by Brando

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.

.

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.

[Rick Lee]

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.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

[azasadny]

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...

[flatbutt]

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?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

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.

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.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Rick.. your opinion is irrelevant.

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

[Brian in VA]

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.