Burglary victim to go to jail

[agricola]

JPL,

And everyone else is basing their reasoning on an article that contains very few facts and rather more of the mitigation to a guilty plea? Chapman sounds, from that very brief story, to have been rather more in touch with his criminal side than any of you would be willing to admit.

Or are we claiming that the gun fairy exists?

Still, I am willing to wait - as I was when Lindsay happened - for the truth to come out. I await Febuary 11th with baited breath.

You know, you would think that some of you would have noticed that, with a media as hungry for self-defence stories as the UK's is, the fact that this has only been picked up by the SLP might just have set the alarm-bells ringing. But that would be too much to ask.

 

[Cosmoline]

I've given people guns before, and people have given me guns before. Sometimes people who don't even know me that well. Sometimes on the public streets (shock!). If transfers and possession were illegal here as they were in GB, I'd be making a point of dropping firearms off with anyone I thought might want one.

Reading the stories about the UK, then reading the justifications of the state's conduct, reminds me of reading "Brave New World" or "1984." It's the world turned upside-down.

 

[Art Eatman]

Numerous THR folks are in the same boat with agricola, so i'm not singling him out; he just jogged my memory:

Everytime I see "baited breath" I wonder, "With what? Sardines? Spearmint?"

"Bated", folks, "bated".

The grammar fairy struck again.

Art

 

[Andrew Rothman]

The assumption that he is a drug dealer is based on the extant facts - the nature of the "burglary", the fact that he kept a gun at home, the fact that the Police (and by the way there is nothing to say that they did not get a warrant to search the premises) wanted to search his home.

I've never come closer to being physically ill from something I've read.

I can't believe that you are serious, and must conclude that you are playing devil's advocate. No one able to write complete sentences could possibly believe that tripe.

 

[thorn726]

i am just going to throw out there that I was only explaining why someone might be in trouble defending their drugs with a gun=

From the article, MOST are gettting this thread wrong i think.

THE ARTICLE IS FROM ENGLAND. doenst that make the guy's possesion of gun illegal no matter what he was doing?
i dont think the guy in article was doing anything but being in possesion of a gun in UK.
???????????

 

[Don Gwinn]

OK, let's be honest. When there's a big home invasion with numbers like this in the states, 9 times out of 10 it's an attempt to rip off a drug dealer. Whether that holds true in the UK or not, I don't know, but it's certainly not unreasonable for Agricola to raise the possibility, especially since we have no clear evidence the other way.

That said, Ag, your assumption that he's probably a drug dealer because the cops wanted to search the house had me looking for the duct tape to wrap around my head. Some people get suspected of crimes, even investigated, and turn out not to have committed them, you know.

Also, the "gun fairy" you mention exists here. People will, do and have dropped off items they think someone has an urgent need for right now, and it even happens anonymously on occasion. Admittedly, it probably happens less often than drug-related burglaries, but you're putting a lot of work into chiding people for posting without all the facts for a man who has zero facts on this case himself and still insists that he knows what happened.

 

[beerslurpy]

Exactly. Just because someone violates a weapons law doesnt mean they are automatically guilty of other crimes as well. You sound like a less racist version of my British grandmother. Making ad hominems against victims of goverment oppression is just a weak attempt to dodge the obvious truth of how evil your government has become.

Also, the right to self defense in England IS completely stripped away depsite all your arguments to the contrary. Your nitpicking about the details of each weapon or manslaughter conviction are the best proof yet of that. In any sane country, violently attacking someone automatically causes you to give up any right to being treated in a restrained, proportional or fair manner. You stepped over the line and the other guy has every right to finish it. If you cant get away fast enough when the situation turns against you, whose fault is that?

As for owning weapons, or possession simpliciter of ANYTHING for that matter, the crime should spring from the violation of someone else's property, life or liberty, not from the simple fact of posession. This used to be a fundamental underpinning of our common legal systems- the concept of posession simpliciter being a crime "against the state" or "against the common good" is a worrying sign that the law is more about societal control than individual protection. Explain to me why this is a good thing.

 

[Sparks]

Also, the right to self defense in England IS completely stripped away depsite all your arguments to the contrary.

Codswallop.
Had he had a 12-guage pump-action shotgun loaded with buckshot, there'd be no charge against him. But a .32 pistol is illegal to own in the UK at the moment (unless you're in Northern Ireland), and that's the charge he's guilty of. It's got nothing to do with his right to self defence, which is intact and untouched.

In any sane country, violently attacking someone automatically causes you to give up any right to being treated in a restrained, proportional or fair manner.

More Codswallop.
Amongst the 11 cases tried in the past 15 years in the UK where someone claiming self-defence was actually tried (according to the CPS), you had cases like a teenager being shot for stealing an apple from an orchard, and another where a burgler was knocked unconcious, tied up, and then set on fire. There has to be a line that seperates self-defence from murder and in the UK and in Ireland, it's called "reasonable force". It does not permit you to exact punishment on someone for their crime, but only to defend yourself with whatever force is necessary at the time (and there is a lot of leeway because of the fear inherent in such a situation), or with reasonable force in the case of defending property (because it's not right to shoot a kid for stealing an apple).

 

[beerslurpy]

Yeah, weapons are legal to use unless the other guy isnt armed or isnt threatening enough etc etc. Shotguns arent legal unless you have permission. Ditto rifles. Self defense isnt cause to own a gun. You need to be a member of a shooting club, etc.

Need I go on?

 

[Sparks]

Yeah, weapons are legal to use unless the other guy isnt armed or isnt threatening enough etc etc.

There's a lot of leeway in there for the defendant though. Being convicted for murder in what you claim is a self-defence case is very rare in the UK or Ireland, and generally only happens in cases where there was a gross stepping over the line by the defendant.

Shotguns arent legal unless you have permission. Ditto rifles. Self defense isnt cause to own a gun. You need to be a member of a shooting club, etc.

You need a licence because there isn't an RKBA in the UK or Ireland; that doesn't mean that you can't have a firearm, and at 0300 when someone's coming up the stairs, the difference between having a pump-action with a licence and a pump-action with a right to own it is an incredibly unimportant one.

Self-defence isn't a valid cause to get a firearms licence now - but that's a grey area in the UK and Ireland because in both cases, that's a policy decision, not a law, and in both cases, you have "informal solutions" - people that go trap shooting with pump-actions and buckshot. That's not to say it always works - it's a different environment over here and what you believe is the best solution for you has no attached guarantee that it will work in another country with a wholly different environment. In Ireland, for example, CCW or even RKBA would have some very nasty consequences.

As to the shooting club, there's some sense to it, in that the philosophy is to treat a firearm as being as dangerous as an aircraft - ie., as dangerous as the chap using it. So a pilot's licence requires a certain degree of ability to fly and the firearms licence requires the same thing, though far more informally, through the structure of the shooting clubs that are all over the UK. (You don't have to be in a club in Ireland, but it does help).

 

[Chuck Jennings]

In Ireland, for example, CCW or even RKBA would have some very nasty consequences.

This is the kind of thinking says some people more worthy of effective self defense than others. Why would law abiding Irishmen with arms be so nasty? Gun control in Ireland just leaves the guns in the hands of the bad guys.

 

[Sparks]

Why would law abiding Irishmen with arms be so nasty?

By definition, they wouldn't be. It's the non-law-abiding ones that cause the problems, and there are more than enough of them as it stands (we're living in a country that's had a terrorist problem for the last thirty to forty years, don't forget). Fact is, the country chose in 1922 to not have an RKBA to try to prevent further civil war. It worked. And bringing it in in the last 30 years would have been a good way to start an open war with the UK.

Plus, there's a serious alcohol-related violence problem over here, which CCW would seriously exacerbate.

Remember, there's a different mindset over here, and what works for you may not work for us.

 

[agricola]

Don,

My belief that this is a drug dealer is not based just on the fact that cops wanted to search his house; its based on all the information based in that article. If the SLP returns to this story on Febuary 11th, hopefully we will find out a bit more. Hopefully by then Matt Payne will have got off his high horse - which is clearly making him ill - and will be with the rest of us in the real world. I mean, one would think of what I do and where I work and live and one might just consider that I might know a teensy bit more than people living on the other side of the pond.

Also, while you criticize my own beliefs based on little information, you should criticize everyone else who - once again - have gone off on one about the UK and its problems.

Sparks,

The assistance is welcome, however trying to reason with some people is like getting blood from a stone.

 

[beerslurpy]

The CIA and MI5 both agree that the number of actual hatchet-men in the IRA was about 200 people during their peak. Only in a disarmed nation can 200 men terrorize millions. In any population, no matter the ethnic makeup, 99 percent of the population are peaceful conformists who dont tend to misuse weapons or intentionally stir up trouble. CCW laws arm the most law-abiding 1-10% of society and seriously elevate the risk for that bottom 1% of people who are causing most of the problems with violence. History has borne this out in every state that has had a serious crime problem and subsequently passed a shall issue CCW law.

Plus, there's a serious alcohol-related violence problem over here, which CCW would seriously exacerbate.

Maybe, for about the first week as the stupids left the gene pool. They made more dire and realistic predictions in FL and none of those came true either. "Irishmen are drunkards" or some other stereotype the english are fond of should not be sufficient to deny them the fundamental right to self defense.

Also, they did not choose to disarm, they were forced. When the state chooses for you, that is not choice, especially when the bulk of the state is neither elected nor beholden to the public.

 

[Sparks]

The CIA and MI5 both agree that the number of actual hatchet-men in the IRA was about 200 people during their peak.

I find that exceptionally hard to believe, and I'd want to see a lot of proof before accepting it.

CCW laws arm the most law-abiding 1-10% of society

No, a "shall issue" CCW law arms anyone who wants to be armed. That's kindof the whole point. And how do you draft a "shall issue, except to the people we don't trust" law?

History has borne this out in every state that has had a serious crime problem and subsequently passed a shall issue CCW law.

That's not what the NAS have just said.

Maybe, for about the first week as the stupids left the gene pool.

Yeah, well maybe I don't feel like spending a week ducking and putting armour cladding on my bedroom walls until they're done!

"Irishmen are drunkards" or some other stereotype the english are fond of

Stereotype? Look, I'm not kidding - Ireland has a serious alcohol-related violence problem right now, there's nothing imagined about it.

Also, they did not choose to disarm, they were forced. When the state chooses for you, that is not choice, especially when the bulk of the state is neither elected nor beholden to the public.

All of the state was elected and beholden to the public when the decision was made.

 

[beerslurpy]

About the IRA, I found several estimates from security experts that claim the IRA has consistently ranked at around "a few hundred" trigger pullers and several thousand sympathizers. Obviously they dont publish lists of who is doing the killing. The estimates are based off of activity and off of arrests/killings. If you can find me proof (well as convincing proof as you can find of the size of a secret org) of them being larger than a few hundred violent members, I would love to see it.

No, a "shall issue" CCW law arms anyone who wants to be armed. That's kindof the whole point. And how do you draft a "shall issue, except to the people we don't trust" law?

That is the rate at which eligible citizens in the US participate in concealed carry. These citizens are involved in an amount of crime that is statistically indistuinguishable from zero. Numerous police officials in various places such as Miami who felt as you do now came full circle to support concealed carry fully. QED.

That's not what the NAS have just said.

Ooooh, more bad news for you here. The normally unanimous (234/236 previous panels were unanimous) National Academy of Science split on this exact issue. It was observed by panel member James Q Wilson that the board ARBITRARILY CHOSE TO IGNORE compelling evidence that concealed carry laws were extremely effective in lowering violent crime, especially murder. The only evidence that the NAS panel admitted to counter this evidence was non-peer-reviewed and non-controlled studies that were dubious at best.

The NAS has a LONG history of being anti-gun and this is not the first time they have cooked the books to arrive at false conclusions on gun control. The fact that a bunch of anti-gun ideologues could not find a SINGLE shred of evidence that gun control works is damning evidence itself.

<bull????>snip</bull????>

All of the state was elected and beholden to the public when the decision was made.

Yeah, which is why they have been fighting with guns to get rid of that government for decades now. And dont even try to pretend for a second that the enormous socialist leviathin in the UK is even partly elected. Surely you dont think that the entire apparatus of the state is made up of a few MPs and the prime minister do you? I wish we could vote the American IRS, ATF and DEA out of office, but that just never seems to come up for a vote.

 

[roo_ster]

Had he had a 12-guage pump-action shotgun loaded with buckshot, there'd be no charge against him. But a .32 pistol is illegal to own in the UK at the moment (unless you're in Northern Ireland), and that's the charge he's guilty of. It's got nothing to do with his right to self defence, which is intact and untouched.

So, let me get this logic straight: there still exists a right to self-defense, just not the effective means.

Just as the right to freedom of movement would exist if the general public were not allowed the use of automobiles or aircraft.

I think that essentially destroying the means to exercise a right destroys the right.

 

[TimLambert]

Ooooh, more bad news for you here. The normally unanimous (234/236 previous panels were unanimous) National Academy of Science split on this exact issue. It was observed by panel member James Q Wilson that the board ARBITRARILY CHOSE TO IGNORE compelling evidence that concealed carry laws were extremely effective in lowering violent crime, especially murder. The only evidence that the NAS panel admitted to counter this evidence was non-peer-reviewed and non-controlled studies that were dubious at best.

This is not true. You should read Wilson's dissent and not rely on Lott's fabrications.

 

[beerslurpy]

You are a ????ing genius. Did you even read the link you posted? It agrees completely with both myself and Lott. And yes, I read it previously.

Wilson states, in reference to the conclusion of the NAS "that shall-issue CCW evidence is inconclusive" that (and I quote directly):
If this analysis of Lott’s work showed that his findings are not supported by his data and models, then the conclusion that his results are fragile might be sufficient. But my reading of this chapter suggests that some of his results survive virtually every reanalysis done by the committee.

 

[agricola]

beerslurpy this is an outright lie:

It was observed by panel member James Q Wilson that the board ARBITRARILY CHOSE TO IGNORE compelling evidence that concealed carry laws were extremely effective in lowering violent crime, especially murder.

Wilsons exact words:

In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.

As for "arbitrarily choosing to ignore compelling evidence", I think you'll find Wilsons problem was that Lott's evidence was scrutinized more than the other evidence, not that they ignored it:

That has not happened here. Chapter 6 seeks to show that fragile results exist but not to indicate what research strategies might improve our understanding of the effects, if any, of RTC laws. To do the latter would require the committee to analyze carefully not only the studies by John Lott but those done by both his supporters and his critics. Here, only the work by Lott and his coauthors is subject to close analysis.

 

[beerslurpy]

They examined Lott's work and gave it equal weight with non-examined work that claimed to find the opposite. That is the essential problem, not that an anti-gun organization failed to find that 100% of his analyses were perfect.

His work showed, and others have failed to discredit, that RTC laws DO have a positive effect on society, although the magnitude of the effect varies greatly. Claiming that this is somehow not the case because you beleive a small portion of his findings werent valid is dishonest. Claiming that an essentially fabricated study should be viewed as being on equal ground with his study, just so you can say that "evidence is conflicting and inconclusive" is equally dishonest.

 

[agricola]

....and making up what a source said is not dishonest?

 

[Sparks]

About the IRA, I found several estimates from security experts that claim the IRA has consistently ranked at around "a few hundred" trigger pullers and several thousand sympathizers.

With the caveat that every time you knock off a trigger puller, you have someone else (usually several someones) who'll step into his shoes, and that you've created a few dozen more sympathizers, I could accept that analysis. But "a few" means more than one or two over here, you're talking five or six hundred. Armed with everything from pistols to barretts and thousand-pound carbombs.

If you can find me proof (well as convincing proof as you can find of the size of a secret org) of them being larger than a few hundred violent members, I would love to see it.

It's called "Irish History". Got a few years?

That is the rate at which eligible citizens in the US participate in concealed carry. These citizens are involved in an amount of crime that is statistically indistuinguishable from zero.

That applies in the US. I don't live in the US. I live in Ireland, and our situation is different.

Ooooh, more bad news for you here.

Nope. Look, bit of personal history - I didn't think CCW was a good idea, saw Lott's research and changed my mind purely on the basis of the statisitics. The NAS's research (and yes, I've read it, and yes, I followed it) shows Lott's research was unsafe to use to form conclusions. So, until someone comes up with a sound statistical study to form conclusions from, I'm reverting to my personal evaluation. And that is that over here, CCW would be a bad idea.

<bull????>snip</bull????>

Care to actually say what you mean?

Yeah, which is why they have been fighting with guns to get rid of that government for decades now.

Who's been fighting what government?

Surely you dont think that the entire apparatus of the state is made up of a few MPs and the prime minister do you?

Not my state, no...

So, let me get this logic straight: there still exists a right to self-defense, just not the effective means.

Frankly, if you think your sidearm is the most effective means of self-defence, you're wrong (it's an effective tool - but the most effective means is your brain not walking your body somewhere where it can get hurt).
And isn't there a large debate over whether a 12-guage or a pistol is the better tool in the case of someone breaking into your home?

Just as the right to freedom of movement would exist if the general public were not allowed the use of automobiles or aircraft.
I think that essentially destroying the means to exercise a right destroys the right.

What about your right to freedom of speech being restricted by not allowing you to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
Where do you draw the line between sensible responsibility and "destroying the right"?

They examined Lott's work and gave it equal weight with non-examined work that claimed to find the opposite.

Really? Because I read it as them examining Lott's work and finding that the math didn't add up right. You don't have to contrast Lott's work with other sources, you have to see if his statistics were done correctly - did the sums add up to the correct amount, in other words. Do you grade maths homework by comparing one child's work with anothers? Or do you just do the sums properly and check the answers?

 

[Don Gwinn]

*Sigh.*

Agricola, I certainly DID exactly that, and I did it by defending YOUR argument as being plausible.

If defending your argument and refuting those who have dismissed your argument isn't enough to be fair to you, then I have no interest in being "fair" by your definition. You are not a martyr, sir. Also, I didn't say that you based your opinion solely on your assertion that if the police wanted to search his house, that's evidence that he's a drug dealer. I simply pointed out that you made that assertion (among others, if it makes you feel any better) and that it's a ridiculous assumption unworthy of a free man.
Your other "evidence" wasn't much better, but I didn't see the need to go into all of them.


One more time:

1. "They" were wrong to say that the "victim" is obviously an innocent who has been downtrodden by the burglars and the cops in the same week.

2. YOU were wrong to say that the "victim" is obviously drug-dealing scum who deserved everything he got.

3. NEITHER side can reasonably claim to know the truth with any certainty, but you're both hotly declaring to be the possessors of certainty.

4. I'm all done now. Have a nice day.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

No, a "shall issue" CCW law arms anyone who wants to be armed. That's kindof the whole point. And how do you draft a "shall issue, except to the people we don't trust" law?

No, only those free from any felony conviction, or domestic violence record, are eligible.

In Texas for example, CHL holders have a lower rate of criminal involvement overall, and specifically involving the use of firearms, than any other group, including the police.

Stereotype? Look, I'm not kidding - Ireland has a serious alcohol-related violence problem right now, there's nothing imagined about it.

Every western nation does, including the US and UK.

Do you have any hard statistics to show that the problem is significantly worse in Ireland, and bad to the extent that the Irish are somehow not trustworthy enough for CCW?

Your assertion may be based on a mere stereotype.

And are you referring to all of Ireland, or to just the Republic or to N. Ireland when you make this assertion?

How does the rate of violent crime in Ireland compare with that in the UK? I have the impression that it is significantly lower.

In which part of Ireland do you live?