[agricola]

hang on....

unfortunately it was the Sun of all papers that broke this story this morning:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003363101,00.html

[TheEgg]

Excellent! Good for the authorities for recognizing a clear-cut case of serf-defense. (sorry for that, but I had to do it!)

But the poor guy has been burned out of his home? Is the lawlessness in the UK this bad? Have the police arrested and incarcerated the ones who have been attacking this family yet?

[agricola]

the egg,

i dunno - the arson has just happened - one imagines they have a good idea who it is. With regards to lawlessness, this does happen in the US as well you know, as indeed could it happen anywhere.

[TheEgg]

You are right, it could happen anywhere, but reading the British Press (I know, almost as poor a source of information as the US Press), it seem as if retaliation and threats of retaliation from the crims seems to be almost commonplace over there. Is this true, or am I being "sensationalized"?

Here in Texas, I honestly cannot recall something like that happening to an "honest" citizen, only to fellow members of the criminal world. Doesn't mean it hasn't, just can't remember any cases. Course it could be because many, many citizens of Texas are armed, and our laws allow us a great deal of leeway in defending ourselves.

[Boats]

I suppose congratulations are in order as you have managed to find an example of lethal self-defense in the UK wherein charges won't be lodged or an inquisition conducted.

However, some caveats: 1) The police seemed to be of the mind that had the householder been a fit man, they would have likely charged him. 2) The article focused on the frailty of the defender rather than his "right" to defend himself, being of a tone of "how could he run away when he can't see?" 3) The gentleman has been burned out of his home. 4) The survivors are certainly reflective of a good portion of the law-abiding citizenry, who would readily join in demanding that the homeowner face the courts even in a clear cut case (no pun intended) of self-defense. 5) had this occured on the street, the defender would have been crucified by the system though the situation would have been just as dangerous to the defender despite nothing more than a scenery change.

IOW, you have a long way to go in the restoration of a common sense right to armed self-defense in the UK.

In April we had a well-publicized SD shooting here in Salem, Oregon that even managed to attract a buzzard from the BBC's Real Story.:rolleyes: Friends of the decedent have been arrested for pelting the homeowner's house with rocks and garbage and are under the authority of the juvenile system now. No arson yet.

[Art Eatman]

"The couple have suffered a string of revenge attacks including firebombs being hurled into their (home)..."

A "string" of revenge attacks? As in more than one? Firebombs? As in "Attempted Murder"?

"You don't need guns for self defense. The police will protect you."--some idiot or another...

:barf:

Art

[Cosmoline]

I LOVE how the Sun showed pictures of the dead scumbag. You wouldn't find a US paper, even in a liberal city, doing anything like that. DISGUSTING!

What amazes me is the overt and open reaction from this pig's friends. They are far more bold and outspoken than similar scumbags in the US. They really think their rights have been violated! Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

No arrests for the firebombings, I see. There's British justice for you. Ah, but they did decide not to punish an ancient blind man. How noble of them :rolleyes:

It's like telling us how wonderful Caesar is because he opts NOT to kill one of his older slaves who displeased him.

[OF]

You present this as evidence that the British subjects are allowed to defend themselves? You have got to be kidding.

One thing is clear, the British concept of self-defense and human rights is so far removed from mine that we simply do not speak the same language.

- Gabe

[benewton]

GRD!

[agricola]

grd,

oh, sorry - one thought evidence of someone citing self defence and being successful would prove that self defence exists in English law. I can see how you are confused, so here is another one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm

but by all means carry on with the anti-British sentiment; after all, lying and misstating the facts is going to advance your cause :rolleyes:

[Khornet]

you can't fool ol' Khornet.

This is a trap, isn't it? A trick. You're waiting to pounce as soon as I open my mouth.

I can't figure out what your evil scheme is....but you won't get ME! No sirree, not ol' Khornet. Uh-uh.

[Cosmoline]

One problem with your second example:

"On Friday the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing of the 30-year-old. "

So the cops and your version of the DA (no doubt with some lofty title and an absurd wig) decided to go ahead and put him on trial and TRY to convict him. Not a ringing endorsement.

[Khornet]

the same thing happens here in justified kiilings, too. Some kind of inquiry is made by some authority to officially decide whether the killing was justified.

[agricola]

cosmoline,

No, thats the jury in a Coroners Court - a court that meets to assess the cause of a persons death. Interestingly enough, its the oldest continually active court system in the UK, maybe the world - I gather it dates from the Norman Conquest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/fighters/coronerscourt.shtml

[Sergeant Bob]

In neither instance was a firearm used, only something "at hand". What would be the outcome if they had used "illegal weapons".

[Boats]

Or "offensive weapons?"

[agricola]

boats,

the weapons used would be "offensive weapons" if carried on the street.

bob,

there would be no difference in the same circumstances - but the homeowner would probably be charged with the possession of the gun. Of course, if we are talking about a legally held s1 or s5 firearm or shotgun, then that wouldnt apply.

[Art Eatman]

Ag, in Texas, all homicides--whether by cop or non-cop--are brought to a Grand Jury. There, the determination is made as to self-defense or justified, vs. a criminal taking of life.

The comparative difference between Texas and England is that we give more weight to behavior and less weight to the implement. There is more concern about proper use or about misuse of a weapon, and less concern about the type of weapon used. Under the law, the misuse of an Olympic Free Pistol in .22 caliber can get you into as much trouble as the misuse of a fully automatic weapon.

Our body of state law recognizes that police cannot protect an individual but only the general peace within a community. It recognizes that the citizen is the only guarantor of personal safety, and places relatively little restriction on that right. (At the same time, the law places a fairly high level of personal responsibility as to the exercise of that right, as I think it should.)

Our law gives far more respect to the rights of the resident of a dwelling than to a hostile outsider who "messes" with the dwelling, its contents or the people therein. "A man's home is his castle." Sound familiar?

:), Art

[Kharn]

IIRC, Committing arson on an occupied structure is usually a capitol crime in the US and its justified to shoot an arsonist-in-progress in every state of the union.

Kharn

[T.Stahl]

Well, in Germany the old gentleman would not be charged even if he had defended himself with an AK74 illegally bought from Russian troops before they left.

To punish someone for defending his life with an illegally owned weapon is somewhat immoral.

It's like telling him/her, "though it's nice you're still alive, you did something utterly wrong and actually should have obeyed the law, not have had access to that defensive tool, and be dead instead!"


Oh, with regards to arsonists the army taught me to shoot immediately and hit either the arsonist or at least his molotov cocktail. :D

[alan]

Argicola:

According to the newspaper article, if they got it right, the offended parties attorney observed "Tom’s solicitor Ronan Maguire said: “Due to his disabilities Mr O’Connor was particularly vulnerable and believing himself and his wife to be in immediate danger defended himself in the only way he could.”

It appears that the police are going along with this position, however one wonders as to their attitude respecting a situation where Mr. O'Connor did not suffer from such disabilities as he in fact suffers from.

Any ideas?

[agricola]

Alan,

Had the homeowner been in full physical fitness then the situation would still be the same - all the evidence pointed to the conclusion that he had been under attack and defended himself with appropriate force. The fact that he is partially sighted probably just boosted his case.

[Boats]

the weapons used would be "offensive weapons" if carried on the street.

Then one must advise the criminals in the UK to beat their prey, fit, blind, or otherwise, upon the streets of the Kingdom.:rolleyes:

[Duncan Idaho]

Well, at least that piece of excrement is dead. That makes me happy. I hope the neighbors manage to find and kill the arsonists. That would make me happier still.

Thanks for the good news ag! ;) :D