[agricola]

I think this settles the debate nicely - its nice to be vindicated, after all. The Tories have been reduced to claiming dozens of people had been dragged through the Courts - though of course, any attempt to get them to cite these cases results in silence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

[The_Antibubba]

That's a good first step.

Now, if you only had something more potent on hand than the sofa pillows.

[mbs357]

Good read!

[agricola]

now, i guess we wait to see what the pro-fibs, pro-Martin people respond with

[Sparks]

Now, if you only had something more potent on hand than the sofa pillows.
Never seen anyone refer to an M3 loaded with buckshot that way before...

[carebear]

My personal reply (not as a pro-fib/Martin) would be "OK, now that it is clear I can use force to defend myself, how about reconsidering the barriers to legal ownership of the only real effective means of using that right?"

If I, the decent law-abiding citizen, am down to mere cricket bats or kitchen knives against an fully-armed criminal, even within my home, I'm still at an unjust disadvantage.

Regaining reasonable access to the most effective means of self-defense for the "good people" is the next step to properly serving the people of Britain.

[carebear]

As a generic greengrocer you can have an M3 loaded with buck in your downtown London flat without jumping through a pile of arbitrary hoops or essentially lying by saying you keep it on hand for skeet or something similarly preposterous?

I so, I withdraw my prior post. :)

[TDPerk]

It is perfectly obvious that Brett Osborn at least is a self evidently innocent person who could only have been placed in the position of deciding to take his case to trial and risk a life sentence or make a plea bargain to a lesser crime when the legal system in question is, as a practical matter, hostile in principle to self defense. He should never have been placed in jeopardy of prosecution for a crime.

Yours, TDP

[Sparks]

As a generic greengrocer you can have an M3 loaded with buck in your downtown London flat without jumping through a pile of arbitrary hoops or essentially lying by saying you keep it on hand for skeet or something similarly preposterous?
What lie? You need to shoot something to learn how to aim the thing, and informal clay pigeon shooting's pretty popular. Call it an Irish solution to a UK problem :neener:

[Sparks]

It is perfectly obvious that Brett Osborn at least is a self evidently innocent person who could only have been placed in the position of deciding to take his case to trial and risk a life sentence or make a plea bargain to a lesser crime when the legal system in question is, as a practical matter, hostile in principle to self defense.

Actually, what Osborn himself said was that he based his decision on what he knew of Martin's case. Had he known what had actually happened in Martin's case, he would in all probablility have made a different decision. The fault lies not with the law but with Martin's statements which were later shown to be false but which have led nevertheless to enormous confusion over what the law is in regard to self-defence in the UK.

[carebear]

Sparks,

I understand, but I actually have a philosophical problem with honest people being forced into even a minor subterfuge (even one that may be officially winked at) to get, in this case, the means of self-defense.

If it is going to be "winked at", why bother with the games? Just do the right thing and call a spade a spade. Law-abiding folks owning the effective means of self-defense is NOT a threat to the public safety or good.

Don't want people carrying? Fine. Want to cave to the idiots on handguns in general? Great. But to make grandma choose to either lie about her new-found interest in sporting clays or resort to her field hockey stick from public school in her own home is criminal malfeasance on the part of officialdom.

[Sparks]

I actually have a philosophical problem with honest people being forced into even a minor subterfuge (even one that may be officially winked at) to get, in this case, the means of self-defense.
Well, there's two things to bear in mind here:
1) At 0300 when a burglar who's high on something is stomping up the stairs in your home, ethical and legal philosophy is not necessarily foremost in your mind;
2) There's no law against being given a firearms licence for self-defence in the UK - indeed there are 12,000 issued personal protection weapons in Northern Ireland - but there is a policy at the moment to not issue one for that purpose on mainland Britain. Thing about policy is, it can be changed quickly and easily if the motive is there. The only reason it hasn't been so far is politics.

[carebear]

I don't disagree about the practicality of fibbing, but it's kind of like Prohibition. If you create a situation where everyone "understands" that the .gov "doesn't really mean it" it leads to disrespect for the law in general.

The gov. needs to suck it up, admit they made a mistake, inform the populace of how and why, and just fix the thing.

This is all aside from my essential (though flexible ;) ) problem with institutionalized dishonesty.

[Sparks]

I don't disagree about the practicality of fibbing
It's not even fibbing if you actually do go clay shooting, of course.
The problem with getting a shotgun for self-defence is contained in that document in the first post:
However, if, for example:
* you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,
you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

It's hard to draw a line between that and owning a shotgun for self-defence in the home. They've just opted not to bother. Which isn't the right decision, but that can be changed. In the meantime, the Irish solution seems practical for those who wish to pursue it.

[carebear]

It's not even fibbing if you actually do go clay shooting, of course.

The Aimpoint gets in the way. :evil:

It's hard to draw a line between that and owning a shotgun for self-defence in the home.

I didn't think of that part of it. I guess the concept of owning a weapon solely for self-defense does implicitly imply an intent to (or at least the willingness to) use deadly force "without involving the police" at some point in the future.

[agricola]

hurrah! I knew they would be here sooner or later.

TDPerk, since you have ran away from every other thread on this issue, please at least have the decency to admit that:

i) you were wrong about this issue as this document demonstrates;

ii) you have no idea of the facts of the Osborn case, save those which the Press (who, as this document and the contribution of others have shown, are deeply complicit in the "confusion" over the issue of self defence) have seen fit to pass on. Since Osborn pled guilty, we dont know if it was a reasonable self-defence or not - Osborn thought that it wasnt;

Carebear,

Which, incidentally, is part of the reason Martin was convicted (in addition to his story being an easily-disproved bundle of lies). As recent cases have shown, farmers have shot burglars caught in the act and not been prosecuted.

As sparks and myself have noted, the way the Firearms Acts have been slapdashed together means that we could overnight and without any further legislative effort, go from what we have now, to what you have in the shall-issue CCW states.

[Sparks]

An interesting point on the Martin case, by the way, is that while he was charged with murder and attempted murder for shooting the burgulars in an act of vigilantism and with possession of an unlicenced shotgun, he wasn't charged with the use of an unlicensed firearm in self-defence - because it's not a crime in the UK. To put it more clearly, there's a clear line drawn in the UK between a right and a tool that can be used in the execution of that right. So the ban on handguns is not, in the eyes of the UK legal system, an infringement on that right.

[Warren]

I don't see what Martin said had anything to do with anything. All that means is don't call the cops. Find some other way to get rid of the bodies.

They were scumbags. They were in his house. They got shot.

So what is the problem?

[carebear]

Agri,

the way the Firearms Acts have been slapdashed together means that we could overnight and without any further legislative effort, go from what we have now, to what you have in the shall-issue CCW states.

Well, here's hoping it shifts that way sooner than later. :)

For now your government has done something ours, in general, is/(are - state and local) too PC and risk-averse to do on this issue. That is, actually explain that self-defense is ok, and legal, and to not be afraid to exercise your right. They even detail a bit of "what to expect". Beats hell out of the "police caution not to take the law into your own hands" crud they tag on every press release.

By the way, I'm not a "they" am I? I really don't want to be a "they."

Sparks,

there's a clear line drawn in the UK between a right and a tool that can be used in the execution of that right. So the ban on handguns is not, in the eyes of the UK legal system, an infringement on that right.

Which is a reasonable distinction to make, to a point. Depending on how many tools are still available and the comparative risks the defender must place themselves in to use them. Grandma with her lacrosse stick for example. It becomes sophistry to say that her right isn't functionally curtailed by the removal of certain equalizing weapons. It eventually leads to the imposition by government of second-class citizen status onto the young, old, weak or otherwise physically impaired.

That's my take anyway.

[agricola]

carebear

TDPerk is the only "They"

:cool:

[Mk VII]

There's no law against being given a firearms licence for self-defence in the UK - indeed there are 12,000 issued personal protection weapons in Northern Ireland - but there is a policy at the moment to not issue one for that purpose on mainland Britain.
Most of those are not owned, they are issued by the government, and when the Emergency is deemed to be over the "Good Reason" for issue will no longer exist and all those certificates will be revoked.
They are also not allowed to practise. They get about two dozen rounds and they aren't allowed to buy any.

[Sparks]

I don't see what Martin said had anything to do with anything.
From Osborn's own comments in the Telegraph newspaper (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2810831) at the time:
"You see it in the paper," Osborn has said, "that bloke Tony Martin who shot the kid who was burgling his house. He went to prison for years. I didn't want to waste my life because [Halling] burst through the door."
In other words, Osborn says that it was his impression of what Martin did that formed the basis for his decision regarding his plea. Now that doesn't mean that he's either innocent or guilty, but it does imply that the confusion created by the media about Martin's case had some serious consequences.

Most of those are not owned, they are issued by the government
No, approximately four thousand of the twelve thousand are issued by the MoD. The other eight thousand are privately owned.

They get about two dozen rounds and they aren't allowed to buy any.
Again, incorrect - the licence is typically for 25 rounds (how many firefights between civilians ever gets past using a single magazine?) though it is not restricted to 25 rounds, and there's no prohibition against training with the firearm in an appropriate place, nor against buying more ammunition once the initial rounds have been fired.

[TDPerk]

hurrah! I knew they would be here sooner or later.

TDPerk, since you have ran away from every other thread on this issue, please at least have the decency to admit that:

I have run away from nothing, and in more senses than one in this case, since I've left off from arguing with you. I have from time to time ceased wasting my time attempting to batter down your intransigence. However, I note from the Brett Osborn case, you missed my point or will not address it. Mr. Brett Osborn should not have been charged. If self defence was in fact a practical option for homeowners in Britain, he wouldn't have been. (Smoothed out by Art)

You did not acknowledge the existence of Mr. Osborn when I first brought his example up to you, I think that was you running away.

i) you were wrong about this issue as this document demonstrates;

This document is the statement of the government which charged Mr. Osborn, you take it as a faithful representation of truth not because it is, but because it supports your case. The document is worthless. For example, this section:
What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:

* having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
* you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,

you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

If this section were operative in fact, Mr. Osborn would not have been charged. I repeat, as a practical matter, the right of self defense does not exist in Britain.

ii) you have no idea of the facts of the Osborn case, save those which the Press (who, as this document and the contribution of others have shown, are deeply complicit in the "confusion" over the issue of self defence) have seen fit to pass on. Since Osborn pled guilty, we dont know if it was a reasonable self-defence or not - Osborn thought that it wasnt;

If you have any evidence to refute the information found in press reports as to the circumstances which led to the atrocity of Mr. Osborn being charged, please share it. If you have none, deal with them as they are instead of insisting the government could make no error in charging him.

Carebear,

Which, incidentally, is part of the reason Martin was convicted (in addition to his story being an easily-disproved bundle of lies). As recent cases have shown, farmers have shot burglars caught in the act and not been prosecuted.

What happy outcomes are found from time to time does nothing to remove the chilling effect with respect to self defense produced by even one ill founded prosecution where the government refuses to admit error.

As sparks and myself have noted, the way the Firearms Acts have been slapdashed together means that we could overnight and without any further legislative effort, go from what we have now, to what you have in the shall-issue CCW states.

Then press for it, demand it, and watch your crime rates plummet.

Yours, TDP

[Warren]

Actually Sparks I was wondering about what Martin said during his investigation for his shooting rather than what Osborn was thinking about his incident.

[Sparks]

If this section were operative in fact, Mr. Osborn would not have been charged.
Incorrect. Read the full document, specifically this section:
Will you believe the intruder rather than me?

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.

In other words, there will be an investigation and there may be a hearing in court. That does not imply that there is any infringement on the right to self defence - in fact, that right implies the outcome of such cases where it was actually self-defence, as opposed to cases like Martins.

I repeat, as a practical matter, the right of self defense does not exist in Britain.
Horse hockey.

If you have any evidence to refute the information found in press reports as to the circumstances which led to the atrocity of Mr. Osborn being charged, please share it. If you have none, deal with them as they are instead of insisting the government could make no error in charging him.
Why should anyone do anything other than say they don't know the full story? That's the most responsible position to take in such a case.

What happy outcomes are found from time to time does nothing to remove the chilling effect with respect to self defense produced by even one ill founded prosecution where the government refuses to admit error.
There have been 11 cases where people were charged after defending themselves in their homes in fifteen years. I'd say that counts as more than "happy outcomes found from time to time".


Actually Sparks I was wondering about what Martin said during his investigation for his shooting rather than what Osborn was thinking about his incident.
Did you have a specific statement of his in mind?

[TDPerk]

Although, what Osborn thought Martin said* was what influenced his decision.

*As well as the policy of banning as effectively as they can (not that it stops criminals) the ownership of the most effective means of self defense, the private ownership of firearms.

And there is the case of Mr. Godfrey-Brown:

Pointless prescution, or trying to make a point? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170211.stm)

"I was exceedingly angry about that," he said. "I went through that drama of nine and a half months. Why couldn't the CPS have dropped it earlier?"

They didn't drop the case earlier because they were fishing for a plea bargain, because it is effectively the policy, nevermind the useless document Agricola brings to us, for the British government to treat people who defend themselves as harshly as possible, subject only to the government prosecutors feelings about what they can get away with.

Yours, TDP

[TDPerk]

In response to my statement:

If this section were operative in fact, Mr. Osborn would not have been charged.

sparks quoted the null document Agricola brought to our attention and wrote

In other words, there will be an investigation and there may be a hearing in court. That does not imply that there is any infringement on the right to self defence - in fact, that right implies the outcome of such cases where it was actually self-defence, as opposed to cases like Martins.

Osborn wasn't merely investigated, he plead guilty to a lesser charge to ensure he could not be subject to prosecution for a crime with a greater penalty. This is hallmark of opportunistic prosecutors who are unconcerned with observing a right to self defense.

In that vein, I wrote:

I repeat, as a practical matter, the right of self defense does not exist in Britain.

To which he once replied:

Codswallop

and now

Horse hockey

Your colorful assertions are not evidence, Sparks.

Yours, TDP

[P95Carry]

Leaving aside the banter in recent posts - and being ''non-Martin'' (:p) ... (sigh of relief allowed Ag!!) ... this does sound like a very good step forward - and long overdue.


BTW Ag - since your post in the 'what might we look like thread' - I am fixated on a hairless pate!! You're not that shiny surely!? :D

[Selfdfenz]

ag,

I still find this scary:

"What if the intruder dies?
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted."


They make it sound like the exception to the rule, as opposed to common practice. Other than that I find this note encouraging.

Just me however.

S-

[Sparks]

Osborn wasn't merely investigated, he plead guilty to a lesser charge
The investigation and the court hearing are seperate matters in the UK as in the US. They are conducted by different, independent agencies under different rules. The CPS decided that there was sufficent uncertainty in the circumstances to bring a prosecution forward; this does not mean he had been found guilty. Faced with the prospect of such a hearing, Osborn chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge. That was his decision, as I've said before. It may have been in error, it may have been ill-advised, but it was not forced.

This is hallmark of opportunistic prosecutors who are unconcerned with observing a right to self defense.
Which is an indication that the problem lies not with the system, but a minority of people within a part of it, who do not have the power to eliminate rights.

In that vein, I wrote:
I repeat, as a practical matter, the right of self defense does not exist in Britain.
To which he once replied:
Codswallop

On that occasion, you were saying that a conviction for possession of an unlicenced firearm was a ban on self-defence. It isn't. In fact, it's not illegal in the UK to defend yourself with a firearm you have no licence for. It's just illegal to possess one without a licence. That's a wholly seperate charge, based on a wholly seperate area of law.

and now
Horse hockey
Your colorful assertions are not evidence, Sparks.
Nope. The facts of the UK judicial system and legislation are, however. And the facts are that the right to self-defence is untouched in the UK. The fact that there are controls on some of the tools which can be used for self-defence - note that that is definitely not a ban on all such tools, by the way - is not in any way a ban on the right to self-defence. And representing it as such is not only incorrect, it is precisely that action which Osborn cites as being the reason for his decision to plead guilty. Assuming he's innocent (which seems very, very likely), your continued insistence in the face of facts to the contrary that it is illegal to defend yourself in the UK is in fact potentially harmful.

And there is the case of Mr. Godfrey-Brown:
Investigated, not charged. For those interested, you'll note that the period of time involved (nine and a half months) isn't that unusual for preparation of a hearing in the UK. Which is a bad thing, yes, but is not a discriminatory act against those who defend themselves because it affects everyone in the system.

They didn't drop the case earlier because they were fishing for a plea bargain, because it is effectively the policy, nevermind the useless document Agricola brings to us, for the British government to treat people who defend themselves as harshly as possible
That's pure paranoia, exacerbated by a lack of knowlege of the realities of the UK legal system.

[Sparks]

They make it sound like the exception to the rule, as opposed to common practice.
It is the exception to the rule, because it means that the police and CPS have in effect acted as the judge in the case and decided whether it was self defence, or whether (as in Martin's case), it wasn't. Normally, that would be a judicial decision, and it's only bypassed in cases where it's very obvious what's happened. In cases like, say, Osborns (where the assailant was stabbed in the back), it's not immediately obvious and a hearing has to be held. That's where the law comes into effect.

[agricola]

TDPerk,

Thats funny, because you seem to abandon other threads when challenged:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=115684
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=120406&page=3

As is clear, this document is not a change in emphasis, but rather a reemphasis of what has been the case in the UK ever since the one "bad case" (R v Shannon) which caused the interpretation of the law to be changed so that it would not happen again.

I also note that you demand we disprove you on the issue of Osborn. That is quite simple - Osborn pled guilty to the offence, so we are right and you are wrong. I repeat myself, but we do not know the full extent of the evidence against him (nor do we know the full extent of the evidence against Godfrey-Brown), and one thing we do know is that elements of the media have for the past ten years been wilfully misrepresenting the facts in order to make points. Sadly, the media has been believed, both by citizens of the UK and everyone else.

Sparks has also pointed out to you the wrongheadedness of your contentions about "opportunistic prosecutors who are unconcerned with observing a right to self defense" - such things did not exist at the time of Osborn, and only exist to a very limited extent now.

[c_yeager]

Excert from the linked page:

So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence.

This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

There may some difference of interpretation between us on "the continent" and our UK friends. But, to me this sentance indicates that one could use some convenient object that you HAPPEN to have around in your own defense. To me this would mean that actually setting aside an object specifically for use AS a weapon would be a different story? What do you think?

[agricola]

C_yeager,

As I have said before, none of the offensive weapon, and most of the firearms legislation (as long as you have a licence for that weapon) apply in your own home (which is what the whole article is talking about); so you could have all manner of weapons - swords, crossbows, polearms, handaxes, battleaxes etc with which to defend yourself, and the use of these weapons would not be illegal.

[Art Eatman]

Hey, ag, how easy is it for a one-armed person to get a handgun license?

Somehow, browsing through this thread reminded me of the Texas law about switch-blade knives. They're illegal. The exception, written into the law, is for a one-armed person. :)

As one looks at weapons, then, it strikes me that it should be recognized that a one-armed person has--shall we say--special needs.

:), Art

[Sparks]

Hey, ag, how easy is it for a one-armed person to get a handgun license?
To answer for ag : as easy as it is for two-armed people.

[TDPerk]

In response to Art Eatman:

Hey, ag, how easy is it for a one-armed person to get a handgun license?

Sparks wrote:

To answer for ag : as easy as it is for two-armed people.

Translation, there is definitely no practical right of self defense in Britain if you are more aged, young, small, weak, disabled, or otherwise less able to physically combat your attacker than they are able to attack you.

And no matter how good you are, there's always someone out there better than you are.

Handguns are great "equalizers." It is evidently British policy for the evil but more strong to rule over the good but weak at least until the armed police officers arrive.

There is no practical right of self defense in Britain.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

[Art Eatman]

How soul-satisfying it is to receive an illuminating answer! Makes my little old heart palpitate in a near-hysterical manner! :D:D:D

Okay, how difficult is it for a two-handed person to get a handgun license?

Art

[agricola]

Art,

Its very difficult. You know this already. However, since we have spent the last two years pretending that the UK had no self defence - and indeed TDPerk remains bleating that false mantra - could we please have some kind of acceptance that what you have all been told was a pack of lies all along.

Maybe then we can discuss the real problems of Firearms legislation in this country, but of course, as ever, I shall not be holding my breath.

[carebear]

the real problems of Firearms legislation in this country

Ok, I have another question. You guys have said that the way the current rules were put into effect, they could be swept away without much work. Could you go into detail on that?

When I think "legislation" I'm thinking of things like our Brady Bill, which had enough support behind it to prevent it being just "swept away", it actually had to be allowed to sunset.

So is it black-letter "law" or "executive actions" that form the current British firearm codes?

I think I don't know enough about the actual Parlimentary process involved and the history of the reg's themselves, if you could explain it.

[R.H. Lee]

Maybe our UK friends could explain how individuals do not have an affirmative right to self defense against violent attack, and why the laws of the land should not conform to support that right.

[OF]

If I, the decent law-abiding citizen, am down to mere cricket bats or kitchen knives against an fully-armed criminal, even within my home, I'm still at an unjust disadvantage.Don't forget you have the 'rugby tackle' available to you! The most potent of all self-defense implements! Intruders quake in fear of the homeowner who possesses such a weapon! How those Brits can complain they are denied the ability to defend themselves when they know perfectly well that they have the rugby tackle is just beyond me.

Ungrateful snobs.

It's patently obvious you have the full and secure right to defend yourself, after all, it says so right there on the page! Maybe you could print out that document, roll it up and try poking the bad guys in the eye with it.

- Gabe

[TDPerk]

To GRD.

You may owe me a keyboard. Mine's got coffee dripping out of it. :neener:

Thanks, TDP

[Art Eatman]

Rhetorical-question tease: If it's so difficult to get a license for a handgun as compared to a two-handed firearm, is this not discrimination against a handicapped person?

:), Art

[agricola]

http://www.duckingstool.com/duckingstool%20images/melch120.jpg

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."

[OF]

Always worked for me :)

- Gabe

PS: "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" This argument eventually ends up at a strange semantic injunction...it's almost like, we speak the same language (Brits and Americans), but it really only sounds the same. Some words just don't compute. Like 'self-defense' 'freedom' 'liberty' 'rights' etc...

[R.H. Lee]

Sparks and agricola, you are splitting frog hairs in a most anal retentive fashion. The Godfrey-Brown case is indicative of the view the law takes on self defense. Charge, with or without sufficient evidence to convict, and intimidate into a plea bargain if possible. Send the message to the rest of the subjects that self defense, in any form (even with a big stick) is frowned upon.

No thanks, and good luck with that.

[carebear]

Art,

It was pointed out to me in the other current Limey ( :D ) thread that the right of self-defense is considered distinct from any particular means to exercise it.

Thus banning or making it more difficult to get firearms isn't discriminatory since the right itself still exists.

My (and yours I'm sure) problem with that is that in a practical sense some means are the only realistic method to actually exercise the right for some people.

But the law over there doesn't recognize what I/we would consider a self-evident fact. And given the way the law is formed, to provide a one-handed man or grandma exemption would in fact create a discriminatory class the other way. It'd be a big can of worms that could only reasonably be legally solved by something resembling the 2nd, which it seems ain't likely soon.

[OF]

that the right of self-defense is considered distinct from any particular means to exercise it.

Thus banning or making it more difficult to get firearms isn't discriminatory since the right itself still exists.This is the crux of the biscuit, when you get right down to it.

- Gabe

[agricola]

carebear,

You might have a point if the vast bulk of the threads about UK self defence that appear here hadnt focused around prosecuting people who the media report (wrongfully in many cases) have defended themselves against attack. These threads are distinct from "Stupid Gun Laws in UK" ones, which at least make a pretence at debate. The self defence ones also seem to feature an awful lot more people running off when their lies are exposed.

Here are a few, there are an awful lot more:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=113779
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=107977
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=100280
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=57231

Now, because the majority view expressed there has been exposed as the fib it always was, we switch to this and then pretend it has been our argument all along. I guess the aim is to throw enough BS into the air and hope it clouds the fact that one of this board's most cherished fallacies has been shown to be rubbish.

Frankly, there is an issue of firearms legislation and whether or not its justified, and then there is this - which some of you have separated in your posts on those threads.

RileyMC,

You are making the same mistake as TDPerk - you do not know all the facts of the case. The reason you know what facts you do is because the papers have reported it. The papers have been demonstrated to have deliberately misinformed the public as to the state of self defence in the UK, which is why this document was released.

Thats demonstrated by a whole load of threads, but none better than these two:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=104632&highlight=sun
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=72967&highlight=manchester

Dont believe everything you read.

:rolleyes:

[R.H. Lee]

<--------Blinded by huge lightbulb above head.
The papers have been demonstrated to have deliberately misinformed the public as to the state of self defence in the UK, which is why this document was released.

AHA! I see said the blind man. We have the same problems with an agenda driven press. Thanks! :)

[TDPerk]

You are making the same mistake as TDPerk - you do not know all the facts of the case. The reason you know what facts you do is because the papers have reported it. The papers have been demonstrated to have deliberately misinformed the public as to the state of self defence in the UK, which is why this document was released.

You assert this. You have not proved it. If, for example, you have other information in the case of Mr. Osborn, provide it for examination. Likewise, in the case of MR. Godfrey.

The self defence ones also seem to feature an awful lot more people running off when their lies are exposed.
In none of these threads do you have the last word Agricola, or make the last point. You are the one who ran off, if anyone did.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=113779&page=1&pp=25
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=107977&page=2&pp=25
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=57231&page=4&pp=25

In this one, you do have the last post to the thread, but is more of the same drivel where you simply assert you are right without supporting evidence in counterpoint to someone else's observation. Pigheadedness is not evidence.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=100280

Even the last post in that thread begs the question of how unreasonable Mr. Martin's actions can have been (not very) when the authorities showed no competence in preventing him from being burgled from evidently at the whim of the thieves.

In this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...2&highlight=sun

You make the statement:

"The idea that the Police doing what they are required to do morally and by law somehow demonstrates the shocking decline of the UK simply illustrates how deeply ignorant so many of you are when it comes to this issue."

You apply a value judgement showing bias in favor of the prosecution of the shopkeeper before all facts were known. This is not made more excusable even if the later occurring incident related in this thread (http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED22%20Sep%202004%2018%3A29%3A04%3A667) was vigilantism by the family of the abused shopkeep (by the anti self defense prosecutors, and the criminals).

Even this more full account supports the conslusion that the police and prosecutors are placing effort where it does not belong--if they are serious about supporting a right to self defense. This is because there is no practical right to self defense in the UK.

You must have thought no one would reread these threads and associated posts.

This statement statement ascribed to the shopkeeper:
"A shopkeeper who was stabbed by a shoplifter said today it was “ludicrous” that he may be prosecuted for lashing out at the thief."

Is perfectly true, it was and is ludicrous that he was ever in ANY danger of prosecution over those actions of his which left him injured.

As for this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=72967&highlight=manchester

Art Eatman's final post, and (by and large) Unlucky's posts; these reflect the proper attitude towards self defense, one which takes that right seriously.

Which right is not taken seriously in Britain by the governemnt.

Yours, TDP

[Sparks]

Translation, there is definitely no practical right of self defense in Britain if you are more aged, young, small, weak, disabled, or otherwise less able to physically combat your attacker than they are able to attack you.
Horse Hockey and Codswallop combined.
Perhaps you'd care to explain to me how it is that you can legally own a pump-action shotgun and buckshot and still consider yourself legally unable to defend yourself against an assailant?

And no matter how good you are, there's always someone out there better than you are.
And no matter how many handguns you have, there's always someone luckier than you. But what has either point got to do with a legal right?

It is evidently British policy for the evil but more strong to rule over the good but weak at least until the armed police officers arrive.
Wrong. Self-evidently, completely proven to be, indisputably wrong by all but the most blinkered and disingenous of people.

There is no practical right of self defense in Britain.
What is it with you? Do you actually want another person to do what Osborn did? Have you absolutely no concience whatsoever?

Okay, how difficult is it for a two-handed person to get a handgun license?
In mainland UK, impossible for anything that isn't an air pistol or black powder or a single-shot ISSF 50m smallbore pistol.
Of course, shotgun licences are relatively easy to get. And in Northern Ireland, personal protection weapon licences are well-known (12,000 issued at present, approximately, and these are concealed carry licences in effect).

Ok, I have another question. You guys have said that the way the current rules were put into effect, they could be swept away without much work. Could you go into detail on that?
The decision to issue or not issue a firearms licence is pretty much down to the local police force. There is a policy among them to not issue a licence exclusively for personal protection (except in NI). That policy is not legislative, and could be changed overnight by the superintendent (that's the title in Ireland, I'm not sure what it is in the UK) if he so chose. That's pretty much the situation.

Maybe our UK friends could explain how individuals do not have an affirmative right to self defense against violent attack, and why the laws of the land should not conform to support that right.
I'm not a UK friend (I'm Irish - our legal systems are very, very similar), but I'll answer - the UK does have an affirmative right to self defence against any attack, violent or otherwise, and the laws of the land conform to support and protect that right.

Don't forget you have the 'rugby tackle' available to you!
Just 'cos you lot can't play rugby without all that body armour... :D

The Godfrey-Brown case is indicative of the view the law takes on self defense.
The idea that you could kill a person in unclear circumstances and have the state turn a blind eye is one that belongs in Kafka novels, not real life. There has to be an investigation - a citizen's been killed. That's the same as in the US, btw. The difference between the US and UK on this point is the time it takes because of inefficencies in the UK judicial system, nothing more.


You assert this. You have not proved it. If, for example, you have other information in the case of Mr. Osborn, provide it for examination. Likewise, in the case of MR. Godfrey.
He was not referring to a specific case, but I will - the papers reported untruths about what happened in Martin's case. Take that for a first example, because it influenced Osborn's case negatively because someone told him the same thing you're saying and he made a decision based on that incorrect story.

[agricola]

TDPerk,

Thats it, that is the most imbecilic post I have ever read on THR. I guess congratulations were in order. Its as if you have just grabbed quotes, ignored the context and decided that they mean what you think they mean.

Firstly, the threads werent taken to shown you running off, as was evident to anyone with a brain; they were, as was explained on the thread to illustrate the view that self defence was itself illegal in the UK - not the lack of guns made self defence unlikely. This displays some form of obsession with yourself; get over it.

Secondly, your quote taken from one of the threads is both directly out of context and bears absolutely zero resemblance to what you think it means:

"The idea that the Police doing what they are required to do morally and by law somehow demonstrates the shocking decline of the UK simply illustrates how deeply ignorant so many of you are when it comes to this issue."

The Police in this country have both a moral and a legal duty to investigate allegations of crime, whoever makes them and in what circumstances they are made. If they dont do that, it affects any trials linked to that case because the defence can show that the Police didnt do their job properly.

The Police did what they are required to do in this case - arrested the shopowner, interviewed him under caution, then released him - the shopkeeper was not prosecuted. I did not express a wish that he should be prosecuted. The fact that this was evident from my argument and other peoples comments on that thread just makes this doubly ignorant when you try and say something else. It was the Sun that withheld information, which an infinitely more intelligent poster than yourself said:

In this case, what they withheld changes the entire nature of the story. It's inexcusable, and I wouldn't have even posted it if I had known what they left out.

The sad thing is, before the Internet, most people had no way of getting at the truth of what was published. Thank goodness for the days of "open source" news we have today.

Thirdly, and most banging-my-head-against-a-wall of all, I do not have to prove Osborn's conviction was false, you do . He plead GUILTY to the offence; if you think there was a failure YOU have to prove it. Posting an article from a newspaper that has just been demonstrated to have wilfully misrepresented over ten years the law on self defence in this country suggests you dont understand why that might have a lot less clout than you think it does.

[only1asterisk]

Why do you guys attempt to argue with agricola? It's useless. He's obviously happy with the state of things in his home country. He's never going to change his mind and will not be swayed by facts or logic. He's obviously bought into the nanny state with all his heart.

The only reason he post here is to try to convince people that England isn't a second-rate socialist hole.


David

[agricola]

wallow in your own ignorance then, only1asterisk.

[only1asterisk]

:neener:

[R.H. Lee]

What is this Osborn case of which you speak? Are we talking about Ozzie Osbourne (sp?). I heard he had a run in with a burglar but don't know the details. Is there a link?

[Sparks]

What is this Osborn case of which you speak?

Tim Lambert has a good summary of this (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/07#gullible4):
Finally we turn to Brett Osborn. Baker claims that this is a case of the government prosecuting someone for an obvious case of self defence. Like all the killers who were convicted he stabbed the victim in the back. This doesn’t sound he was defending himself, but there were others present so he could have been defending them; we just don’t know for sure. In any event, it certainly isn’t an obvious case of self-defence. In this case we don’t know what the jury thought of the evidence because Osborn chose to plead guilty to manslaughter. Why?

Osborn decided that he could not face the risk of life imprisonment. “You see it in the paper,” Osborn has said, “that bloke Tony Martin who shot the kid who was burgling his house. He went to prison for years.

Osborn mistakenly believed that Martin had been convicted despite acting in self-defence. And the reason why he believed that was because of the activities of the “Tony Martin is innocent brigade”. If Osborn was really acting in self-defence then the jury would have acquitted him but Osborn was unsure of this because of people like Baker who argue that self-defence is legally risky in England. As a result Osborn is now in jail.

The law and the results of the cases seem clear. Self-defence in Britain is lawful. There may be some chilling effect on people because of fear of being convicted for self-defence, but the people responsible for that are on Baker’s side of the question.

[Mk VII]

so Osborn may have been guilty of nothing more than accepting bad legal advice (or not accepting good advice). Just shows, if you plead guilty, the prosecution doesn't have to make out a case.

[agricola]

MkVII,

Exactly, but that leaves us with the only option was that his lawyers were either idiots or people who read and believed the Telegraph when they should have been reading Blackstones; either way they were incredibly incompetent if the facts are as represented.

Personally, there is probably a lot more behind this that lead them to give him that advice, because as the story is in the Telegraph he would not have been charged, never mind accepting a manslaughter.

[Pebcac]

Sparks wrote on page 2 of this thread: The CPS decided that there was sufficent uncertainty in the circumstances to bring a prosecution forward

I'm curious. Is this (sufficient uncertainty) the legal standard in the UK to bring a case to trial? I ask because in the US there must be reasonable suspicion (backed by evidence, etc.).

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely asking the question. I want to know if there is a different legal standard for prosecution, or if my perceived difference is only one of semantics given the different English usages that may be involved.

[R.H. Lee]

The basic problem is that the ultra tolerant leftists have hijacked the British jurisprudence system while the people weren't looking. Those same people are getting tired of being victims and are standing up on their hind legs demanding change. In the words of one MP "The people have spoken-the bastards".

[agricola]

Pebcac,

Actually the CPS use a number of determining factors as to whether to bring a case. The most important for this are:

Is there a reasonable standard of the prosecution succeeding? - basically can we be sure that the person we think did it do it, and is that thing against the law? If its likely that the "self defence" was just that, then the prosecution is dropped then and there (often without charges being brought)

Is it in the public interest to proceed? - either is it worth the cost? or is any justice served by proceeding with this matter?

The quote you identified actually means that the CPS were not sure of the likelyhood of a conviction anyway, so they dropped it.

[Pebcac]

Agricola,

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry it took me so long to reply; we had some sick kiddies at my house this weekend thanks to some stomach bug, and now my wife has it.... :(

[iapetus]

Here2Learn
I don't see what Martin said had anything to do with anything. All that means is don't call the cops. Find some other way to get rid of the bodies.

I'd say exactly the opposite.

Martin didn't call the police.

He shot two people (which may or may not have been justifed - I'm not going to argue about that), then went back to bed.

One bled to death, the other reached another house, called for help, and the police were called.

So: the police turn up to investigate a shooting, find a dead man, and the first explanation they get is that given by the "victim".

When they went to Martin's place, he only then said "Oh, they broke in, and I shot at them from here, and didn't think I could or did hit them". Which turned out to be a lie, because he had shot them from a different position, where he could easily and deliberately hit them, while they were running away.

Now, while some might argue he was still justified in doing so, it can hardly be a good idea to let the (surviving) burglar be the first person to inform the police, and then lie about the circumstances when they investigate.

Especially as if he had called the police first, explained that he had feared for his life, given a good reason why just because the burglar had turned his back he was still a threat, and thought shooting was the only way to protect himself, then he concievably could have been aquited with no charge. (Apart from possessing a firearm after having being banned from doing so as a result of aggressive and negligent use of it - which also didn't count in his favour).

[Warren]

Still though I would have given him a pass because of who he shot and what they were up to when he shot them.


That sends a stronger signal to criminal types than locking Martin up did.

[Sparks]

Still though I would have given him a pass because of who he shot and what they were up to when he shot them.

Nope. From where he shot them, he had the drop on them with a loaded shotgun. What he did wasn't self-defence, it was vigilante execution. And if you permit that, well, seen baghdad lately?

[carebear]

Which amounts to summary execution for burglary, if I recall the details of the particular crime being committed.

Regardless of prior experience, if the particular circumstances of this crime didn't require deadly force, shooting the guys, however appealing in a vengence/deterrence sense, was a pretty shaky moral choice.

Martin apparently had "anger management" issues and, given his actions after firing, probably was nutty enough to deserve the book that got thrown at him.

[R.H. Lee]

Martin has been released from prison, though, correct?

[spacemanspiff]

look. all carebear wants is a fair fight when he dons his irish boots and waltzes over to you english for a rumble. can't you give him that much?
:D

besides, everyone knows that the only thing dangerous about the civilized english is their 'drive-by-arguments'.

:neener:

[Sparks]

Martin has been released from prison, though, correct?
Yes, he appealed his sentence on the grounds of mental health and won and was released.

[roo_ster]

Sparks wrote:
Nope. From where he shot them, he had the drop on them with a loaded shotgun. What he did wasn't self-defence, it was vigilante execution.

Uh, the object is to win/survive. It is generally helpful (to that end) to be in an advantageous position WRT the intruder and to act before the BG knows you are about.

If somebody(s) have broken into someone else's house, the victim of the B&E has the presumption that the BGs mean him/her harm. This goes double if the time is at an hour one would reasonably expect the residence/business to be occupied.

Here in Texas, if someone breaks into a house or other property at night, the owner or his proxy is justified by law to use whatever force they deem necessary. In other words, there is no need to shout a warning, wave a flag, or blast a horn. The homeowner can drop the hammer and then call the authorities.

This is supported by Texas law and by what is right & moral. If the home/businessowner decides NOT to dust the BG, it is out of the kindness of their own heart or a desire to avoid cleaning up a bloody mess.

Oh, somebody who does break into my house, thereby putting my family in danger deserves to take a dirt nap.

Vigilante execution, my fourth point of contact.

[Sparks]

Uh, the object is to win/survive.
Not in the UK or Ireland. Here the object is to survive. "Winning" doesn't enter into it, it's not a game. And if survival is the objective, you don't have much call for sneaking downstairs with a pump-action, then unloading into the burgulars at close range without warning. You're under no obligation to retreat, don't make that mistake; but basicly, Martin didn't have to shoot them to survive. And that's the test and even with the large margin for error given in the courts (so large that in 15 years, only 11 cases have seen a conviction for killing someone who was committing a burglary), Martin's case failed the test. (The fact that he lied, showing that he knew he'd done something wrong, adds to this).

[agricola]

Yawn.

Guys, as has been said repeatedly, and as has been demonstrated by both this document and caselaw, to base your arguments on R v Martin is to build your very heavy house on very waterlogged sand. In an area that suffers frequent earthquakes.

It takes an awful lot to be found guilty of murdering a burglar (indeed, Martin is the only case I know of - the rest are all manslaughter verdicts) by a jury of ones peers. Remember, Martin not only lied about what happened, he lied in Court knowing that the forensic evidence Police had recovered proved beyond a doubt that his story could not possibly have happened in the way he said it did; he fled the scene for a day so that it was very easy for prosecutors to suggest he knew what he had done was wrong; he made it abundantly clear to as many of his neighbours as possible that he would shoot anyone he caught trespassing, irrespective of the circumstances (neighbours who subsequently testified to that effect against him) and he had a very long history of gun-related idiocy - shooting at apple scrumpers, blowing a neighbours windows out with his shotgun (which is why his licence was revoked).

In short, he was blatantly guilty of the murder, and only escaped a life sentence on the very probably political (given his subsequent behaviour and the furore around the decision) grounds that he was mentally ill, aided and abetted by elements of the media who hyped his case way beyond its merits, with the results as shown here.