Home Office releases "self defence against intruders" guidance

Status
Not open for further replies.
On the Journey of a Thousand Miles

That's a good first step.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
I don't disagree about the practicality of fibbing
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I don't see what Martin said had anything to do with anything.
Click to expand...
From Osborn's own comments in the Telegraph newspaper 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."
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:
Click to expand...

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;
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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;
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Yours, TDP
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually Sparks I was wondering about what Martin said during his investigation for his shooting rather than what Osborn was thinking about his incident.
 
If this section were operative in fact, Mr. Osborn would not have been charged.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Did you have a specific statement of his in mind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top