Britain: don't hit criminal twice

[Moparmike]

From Free-law

England
The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so - demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant.

Ok, so if the cop is standing around the corner and you know it, get him. Fine, its reasonable.

The other key factor is reasonableness - the defendants response must be necessary and in proportion to the nature of the attack.

Umm, this I dont understand. It is my life I am protecting, and I will be damned if I am going to give my assailant a "sporting chance" to hurt me by playing fair.

The harm inflicted on the assailant must not exceed the harm being avoided by the defendant.

So in this case, my use of an ASP or knife would probably be legit, because of the larger proportion of knife/club crimes compared to gun crime. Actually, this "equal harm" clause is perfectly fine. The criminal probably wants to incapacitate me for a while so he can take my cash or whatever, so I am going to "defend until the threat is stopped" as well. Lots of people do this with any means of defense, like clubs, knifes, and guns.

However like imminency the nature of the defence rests on the defendant's belief, whether their actions were in proportion to the circumstances they believed existed.

It has been argued, with some force, that the above qualifications contain a gender-bias. If the attacked party is considerably weaker than the assailant then to offer an immediate response would be effective in only encouraging greater harm to be inflicted upon the defendant. While if the defendant waits and strikes back later then self defence cannot be applied under current law. Certain groups propose a self-preservation defence.

What I continue to mis-understand is why it seems that the UK government does not want to make crime a dangerous business.

And I ask you again, Agricola. Please address my points above. I will repost them:

How does my carrying of an inanimate object (a firearm, a knife) to be used only when attacked infringe upon anyone else's rights? How is it different from the inanimate object I carry concealed to open my car and house doors? Neither will hurt anyone.


Do you ban keys in the UK to prevent cars from being "keyed?" Its for the paint jobs, you know.

 

[Stand_Watie]

(like stand watie, who has similarly confused RKBA with self defence)

You have simply confused "unarmed self defense" with "self defense"

edited to add that I don't actually believe you are confusing anything, but rather defining self-defense differently than the majority of the members of this board - simply putting the shoe on the other foot to your response.

 

[AZRickD]

GRD said:

My theory. The question is: is the right to self-defense restricted in the UK. Pretty simple.

Not really simple at all. For example, the Taliban thought that assuring that women covered themselves and were not subjected to the rigors of education actually enhanced their womanhood. So, no rights violation in Afghanistan (or parts of Pakistan).

Angri is taking issues with the notion of RKBA and self defense, yet, after S-Waite took up Angri's laughable challenge and posted the words of the Constitutions of several States, including mine own Arizona ("Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired..."), Angri has no comment.

For myself, "self defense" is a minor issue in the arguments of the Right of the Individual Citizen to Keep and Bear Arms. RKBA as it relates to the Bill of Rights (which is designed to limit governemnt power) concerns itself mainly with, but is not limited to defense against Tyrannical Government. This is a concept no British Subject can tolerate, let alone a British Lord.

RKBA as defense against crime is all well and good, but it lends itself to a discussion of the socialist concept of "Utilitarian Theory of Rights." If a majority thinks your right isn't beneficial enough society, the theory goes your right is subject to majority vote rather than protection of a Bill of Rights.

Bad mojo. Don't go there.

Rick

 

[agricola]

GRD,

Again, you keep assuming that self defence isnt possible without a weapon (thus repeating your error of confusing RKBA with self defence); I provided the links, the evidence that shows that self defence is alive, well and unrestricted in the UK (RKBA of course is restricted), to which you again ignore.

With regards to the old woman, what if the "young hoodlum" is several hundred metres away with a rifle? How does she defend herself then? Or what if the old woman is blind?

Moparmike,

We are talking about self defence here, not RKBA.

azrickd,

Please, keep the playground name-calling for that location, and try to recall that I did respond to stand_watie - he confused RKBA with self-defence, as are you.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Besides, what if your friend had no arms? No hands? What does he/she do then?

I was going to post a reply. Then I remembered -- you shouldn't try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

 

[Stand_Watie]

.. and try to recall that I did respond to stand_watie - he confused RKBA with self-defence, as are you

No, he did not. He included RKBA within the definition of self-defense -something entirely different than "confusing" anything.

A nation may or may not choose to define maintenance or deployment of an army as being part of "national defense", but the differing definitions between the US and Pacifistia are differing definitions, rather than "confusion".

 

[Moparmike]

Umm, I mentioned the RKBA as one of the methods of self-defense. I also mentioned knives, and I will now mention clubs as well.



Ag, are you honestly trying to tell us that you believe that one can have the right to perform an act, but if the government mandates that the tools necessary to perform that act are prohibited, the right is still intact?

If you have the right to write anything you want, but the government says no one may have hands, then is your right still alive and well? If the government says that you have the right of free speech but you must give up your tounge at birth, are you still free to speak?

Inquiring minds want to know. I simply dont understand how a right can be un-infringed with the confiscation or prohibition of the tools necessary to do the job.

 

[Stand_Watie]

If you have the right to write anything you want, but the government says no one may have hands, then is your right still alive and well? If the government says that you have the right of free speech but you must give up your tounge at birth, are you still free to speak?

An even better analogy I think would be to claim that government restrictions upon media technology are not infringements upon freedom of the press.

Believe it or not, I have seen people from countries which outlaw a broader array of speech than does the US - make the claim that these laws are not an infringement upon their "free speech". Matter-of-factly stating that "Our freedom of speech is fully intact, we simply have to be willing to accept the consequences of saying xxxxx".

 

[OF]

I see. If there is the possibility that someone might not be able to defend themselves, then no one will be able to. After all how can we arm a little blind old lady against a hidden thug with a rifle 200 yards away? Impossible. So nobody gets to defend themselves. Good plan.

I asked you to explain your position more thoroughly, Ag. You have steadfastly refused to do so, instead parrotting the same sentance (are you just cutting-and-pasting your earlier posts?) over and over and over again as if I couldn't read it earlier. I can read it AG, I just don't get it, yet you refuse to elaborate or even engage in discussion beyond saying 'it is so and you don't get it'..

Fine. You had your chance to explain it, you refused. I guess the UK's side of the argument will have to go undefended here. I'm confident there is enough material in this thread for anyone reading to come to their own conclusions about the health of the right to self-defense in the UK and the 'logic' that perpetuates that status quo.

- Gabe

 

[P95Carry]

There is a great divide here ...... and I ain't meaning just the Atlantic!!

Ag has yet to address the aspect of self-defence .. WITH and WITHOUT ''tools'' available...... outside of home I mean.

Let's say a guy is waiting for a bus .. and is approached and threatened by a punk with a knife. He is no martial artist and has nothing to call a weapon apart from his fists. He will I guess meekly have to hand over his wallet - at the same time maybe being ''chivved'' - ''for the fun of it''. If however he had a useful knife then he might stand a chance of defending himself ... if he cannot run.

Oh heck ... there's no point in trying to get this across .. gabe .. it's a hiding to nothing!! We waste valuable keyboard time.!

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, obviously two schools of thought, here: agricola's, and everybody else's. I see no signs of any understanding on agricola's part, nor a change of views on the part of any on either side in the discussion.

So, it's pointless to continue...

Art