You mean Britain has increasing violent crime? I'm Shocked, Shocked!!

by CaptainSchmideo 39 Replies latest social current

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    TD

    Practically speaking how does that work in the UK?

    If two comparable people fight, and one pulls a gun and kills the other (who just had their fists), that is what is known as murder, as you are using superior force.

    You can use superior force only IF you can convincingly argue that you felt your life was at threat. If such a claim is believable ("I shot the burglar in the back when he didn't even know I was there as I felt my life was at risk" probably wouldn't work), then normally you'd walk away from the charge.

    In the circumstance you describe a woman could convincingly argue she felt her life was at risk and would thus be free to do whatever the hell she could do.

    Funky

    The right to self-defence must be absolute or it is no right at all.

    So I should be able to gun people down just because 'maybe' they are a risk? Sounds like American foreign policy, and it would open up an easy option for anyone who wanted to kill someone; just make it look like self-defence and you'll get off.

    People should have the right to self-defence when a jury of their peers decides that it is self defence.

    The law regarding offensive weapons is equally common sense. A bottle can be described as an offensive weapon (in the hands of fighting drunk); a set of knives carried by a chef t

  • Descender
    Descender

    So if I lived in England and I were to break into a house with only the intent to steal some items and I made sure to tell the house owner that I was there to rob them and would not harm them, then the only action the owner could take would be to call the police and watch me steal his stuff, hoping that the police showed up in time to apprehend me? Otherwise the owner would be arrested if he tried to stop me? Strange.

  • TD
    TD

    Abaddon,

    Thanks for your answer. That sounds very similar to self-defense theory in America.

    The main difference from what you describe that stands out to me is American law focuses on responsibility for initiation and escalation of the confrontation.

    As long as you did not initiate the confrontation or contribute in any way to its subsequent escalation to the point of violence, you may use the threat of deadly force to abate virtually any type of assault on your person that may result in bodily harm, and actually follow through with it if the assailant chooses to ignore that threat.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Descender

    So if I lived in England and I were to break into a house with only the intent to steal some items and I made sure to tell the house owner that I was there to rob them and would not harm them, then the only action the owner could take would be to call the police and watch me steal his stuff, hoping that the police showed up in time to apprehend me? Otherwise the owner would be arrested if he tried to stop me? Strange.

    Oh, you can make a citizen's arrest; BUT if the person is found not guilty of what you were citizen's arresting them for, they can bring charges of assault (if you touched them) and unlawful imprisonment.

    Thus someone in your front room with your telly cheerfully telling you they're "just after your stuff, they won't be long", can be placed under citizens arrest; if they resist then you can defend yourself. The charge of brglary will almost certainly stand, and you will be in the green.

    If you try to put someone you see running from a shop being pursued, and end up assaulting them, and they get off on their shop-lifting chare, you can be taken to court.

    In one instance you KNOW there is a law being broken; in another you assume and if you assume wrongly the ends does not justify the means.

    TD

    What happens if someone shoots a burglar as they climb through their window, when they do not know if they are at risk of death? In England that would be murder, although the term would be at the lower end. I have always had the impression (maybe falsely) that if you are on a person's property in the USA they may threaten the use of leathal force and use it if you don't withdraw or surrender to them.

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    Self defense is one of those issues that many people feel strongly about. At first glance, it appears quite simple - anyone who threatens you should be repulsed with the greatest force possible.

    However, when you look at the larger context, things look a little different. You see, criminals come prepared, victims do not. If a criminal expects an armed response, he will bring greater arms himself, and will be much more likely to use them. If a criminal expects little resistance, he brings less force, and is less likely to use it.

    So, when a shopkeeper blows the head off of a robber, we all feel good about it. He has killed one robber. Unfortunately, he has also killed the next ten shopkeepers who don't get the drop on the bad guy, first.

    The article at the beginning of this thread is a rather sickening example of propaganda. It points out that crime in England in comparable to America, and then draws the faulty conclusion that gun laws do not help. Well, why would gun laws reduce break and enters or car thefts? You don't steal a car with a gun. If you are looking for a correlation between gun laws and crime, then look at the murder rate, and the conclusions become clear.

  • mkr32208
    mkr32208
    Compare the 8,259 murders with firearms (out of 12,658) in the US to the 62 in the UK (out of 850). Yup, that is sixty-two. A difference between a 1 in 900,000 chance and a 1 in 31,000 chance. Even without guns the US is horribly violent; 1 in 21,000 chance of being murdered compared to 1 in 66,000

    What percentage of these murders in the US are gangs killing gangs, Drug dealers killing drug dealers who cares if they kill each other off I'm all for it! I got called in for jury duty once several years ago it was a federal grand jury for murder. The acused was a drug dealer acused of killing another dealer and the lawyer asked "do any of you potential jurers feel that because the victim was a drug dealer that the crime of murder was less than murder." I raised my hand and answered "If the defense can prove to me as a jurer that Mr X was a crack addict who killed Mr Y because he couldn't afford his next hit so he killed him to get the drugs for personal use I will vote to free him, if on the other hand the prosecution can prove to me that Mr X was a dealer, even if they CAN'T convince me he murdered Mr Y I will vote to convict him just to get him off the streets." For some reason I wasn't chosen for the jury...

    You see, criminals come prepared, victims do not.

    speak for yourself...

    As long as you did not initiate the confrontation or contribute in any way to its subsequent escalation to the point of violence, you may use the threat of deadly force to abate virtually any type of assault on your person that may result in bodily harm, and actually follow through with it if the assailant chooses to ignore that threat.

    Not only that but there are certain types of crimes in America where deadly force is AUTOMATICLY ASSUMED. Car jacking for one. Car jacking results in the death of the victim (shot stabbed run over as they fall out) so often that if someone attempts to car jack you EVEN WITHOUT A VISABLE WEAPON deadly force is ASSUMED.

    America God I love it here!

  • TD
    TD

    Abaddon,

    What happens if someone shoots a burglar as they climb through their window, when they do not know if they are at risk of death? In England that would be murder, although the term would be at the lower end. I have always had the impression (maybe falsely) that if you are on a person's property in the USA they may threaten the use of leathal force and use it if you don't withdraw or surrender to them.

    In America you can't use lethal force in defense of property (Arson is the only exception I know of) and this includes both burglary and trespass. Therefore if the intruder climbing through the window is on his way out of your home (With or without your property in his possession), lethal force cannot be used. Although the principles of citizen's arrest that you described to Descender do apply here as well, the courts have a history of coming down very hard on mistakes. Your best option by far in this situation would be simply calling the police.

    At the same time though, the home is considered a special case in America. You don't have to retreat from a threat inside your home. Therefore if the intruder climbing through the window is on his way into your home, you have the right to demand that he desist and back up that demand with the threat of deadly force. If he ignores that threat and continues to advance following through on that threat would be considered self defense and not murder.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    TD

    At the same time though, the home is considered a special case in America. You don't have to retreat from a threat inside your home. Therefore if the intruder climbing through the window is on his way into your home, you have the right to demand that he desist and back up that demand with the threat of deadly force. If he ignores that threat and continues to advance following through on that threat would be considered self defense and not murder.

    Unless you could convince people you felt your life was in immediate threat, you couldn't just pop someone who carried on climbing through the window. However, given that is the law, a smart person who keeps their story straight and makes people feel they were terrified will get away a lot more lightly than someone who will say they weren't scared but were being cautious.

    What I think we have is enculturation. To most European, guns are either millitary weapons, police weapons, or criminal weapons. They are not home security devices, they are dangerous - which is why only the army, the police and criminals have them. Any history of household gun ownership, outside of places like Switzerland, or rural communities where people hunt, or classes of people who hunt, is a few generations away.

    Owning guns, to us, seems as pointless and liable to go wrong as executing criminals.

    In America it's in the Constitution. Although many people may be 'European' in their view of guns, the area where they are in a majority are geographically restricted. To many people it comes along with apple pie. Guns are tools. It's my house. Criminals have guns. Of course I will shoot a criminal!

    Owning guns is natural and anyone who wants to take mine away is taking part of what makes me me.

    It's like the abortion debate; both sides can carry on having a discussion where the argument they make is totally meaningless to the other side.

  • Eyebrow2
    Eyebrow2

    "The fact is that gun-crime has gone up in Britain because we end up copying everything from the damaged society of America"

    Jeeezzzz looooooooooweeezzzzz Simon!

    What does that say about the Brits? Have to copy us all the time? Be orignial people! Don't have guns, then defend yourselfs with teaspoons and corkscrews! Show a little initiative!

    oh come, on! Sure, I can take you blaming the US for various problems around the world like Iraq, etc no problem, that is just the way it is with different countries..but my god...the UK is your turf...if you guys cannot control yourselves, don't blame us.

    You guys are just still too sore about losing the colony, ain't ya?

    Let's be friends...we will keep sending you guys stuff like "Dead Like Me", and the hamburger, and you guys keep sharing "Ab Fab" and those mini coopers with us.

    See, now we can all just get along!

    =)

  • avishai
    avishai

    40 Reasons For Gun Control

    1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

    2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

    3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

    4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

    5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

    6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

    7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

    8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

    9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

    10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

    11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

    12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

    13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

    14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

    15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

    16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

    17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

    18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

    19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

    20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

    21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

    22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

    23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

    24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

    25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

    26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

    27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

    28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

    29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

    30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

    31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

    32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

    33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

    34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

    35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

    36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

    37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

    38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

    39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

    40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
    _________________

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit