Can you believe it? UK citizens starting to speak out.

[agricola]

dain,

It was very encouraging to me when I read the following story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai.../ixnewstop.html

It seems the Brits are starting to fight back against their draconian laws against defense of one's castle.

g_gunter

This is what the thread was about, the question that was posed. There is no "draconian law against defense of ones castle", as should be abundantly clear as I have supplied the proof (proof that was rejigged by Joyce Lee Malcolm). You could at least note this. This is not a matter of language, meaning or anything else - you and the rest of the people that subscribe to this are wrong.

 

[igor]

Sorry for the slight hijack, but you've got to tip a hat to

Mr Bolt, 81 , who served in the Second World War, was stabbed twice by an intruder at his Northumberland home in February 2001. Mr Bolt was upstairs with his wife when they heard a noise. He went to investigate and was confronted by a burglar armed with a knife. The two struggled and the thief stabbed Mr Bolt twice before fleeing through a window. "The chap had a knife and so I was entitled to have a go at him. I think, in law, if he's got a knife, I think I'm entitled to kill him, but I don't know what the law is in detail. "It is a funny thing to try and manage with the law because your reaction in those situations is immediate - you don't stop and think: 'Gosh, what does it say in the book about this?'. "I'm an ex-Royal Marine so my reaction was quite active and wholly motivated by self preservation. I would certainly have tried to finish him off if I had something in my hand at the time, but that is a reaction, an instinct. Whether it is legal or not I don't know."

Quite frankly, why should he give a darn

 

[White Horseradish]

The carrying of firearms and other offensive weapons is generally forbidden, but (1) a thing is not an “offensive weapon†if it is not offensive per se and is carried only to frighten; (2) a person does not “have it with him†if he merely snatches it up in the emergency of defence, and (3) there is the defence of “reasonable excuse†where the defendant acted reasonably under an “imminent particular threat affecting the particular circumstances in which the weapon was carried.â€

There are a number of things in this that bother me. Why are you not allowed to carry an object for actual defence rather than vague "frightening"? What defines something as frightening? What defines something as "offensive weapon"?

How can a vague law like this be effective?

 

[mountainclmbr]

The self defense and gun laws in Great Britain, Canada and Australia should be a big RED flashing warning to us. The politicians who worship European laws just want the power for themselves at our expense.

 

[Dain Bramage]

This is not a matter of language, meaning or anything else - you and the
rest of the people that subscribe to this are wrong.

...and this includes The Telegraph, the people that they quote, and all the other Brits that disagree with you. Luckily in Ag-land there is only one interpretation and opinion of any law. All the lawyers and barristers in the world can now go find other lines of work.

 

[agricola]

Dain,

Provide the evidence, please. One wonders how someones mind works when:

Martin is convicted = "UK citizens have no right of self defence"
this farmer isnt charged = "UK citizens have no right of self defence"
someone else isnt charged = "UK citizens have no right of self defence"
pioneer of DNA dies = "UK citizens have no right of self defence"
man eats pie = "UK citizens have no right of self defence"

What exactly do you base your beliefs on?

 

[Dain Bramage]

Evidence is something that is brought before a court. Here we deal in opinion.

My secular legal opinions can be cited from two basic sources. They start with: "When in the course of human events.." and "We the People.."

Now, I realise this doesn't fly across the Atlantic, which is the major reason for the dislocation of discourse between this American-based board and our British brethren. We get the majority of our input from the UK media, which I'm sure is just as accurate as the American media in presenting cultural reality. The opinions of many board members, which trend conservatively and pro-gun (who'd have guessed), disagree with the stories we are hearing.

Now, my understanding is that your beef is a literalist reaction to generalised statements that British law does not allow self-defence. I WILL GIVE YOU THAT. British law, however broad or narrow, does allow for self-defence. However, we DISAGREE over the provisions of those laws. Sources for those disagreements include the lovely excerpts you have printed. Speaking for myself, I can think of two major disagreements off the top of my head.

1. Decoupling self-defence and the means of self-defence is wrong. Dunblane is part of the problem. Lack of RKBA is part of the problem.

2. Proportional response is wrong, and especially concerning a home invasion. I am a proponent of the Castle Doctrine, and I strongly disagree with you on "The law already works well in the manner you would intend "castle doctrine" to be applied". In my state the general standard is "Reasonable fear for life and safety of myself and others", although I would not be averse to a Texas-style defence of property statute.

You, of course, are allowed a differing opinion. This being a gun board, just don't expect the hallelujah converts to be thick on the ground.

 

[agricola]

dain,

To respond:

Now, my understanding is that your beef is a literalist reaction to generalised statements that British law does not allow self-defence. I WILL GIVE YOU THAT. British law, however broad or narrow, does allow for self-defence..

Well its nice to hear it from someone at least. One of the main annoyances for me is that "generalised statements that British law does not allow self-defence" are exactly what the likes of Lott and Malcolm have been making ever since I started on TFL.

1. Decoupling self-defence and the means of self-defence is wrong. Dunblane is part of the problem. Lack of RKBA is part of the problem.

First you accuse me of:

Ag has once again defined the argument down to his own little circle of turf

and then you go and do exactly the same thing. As it happens this point can be answered quite neatly. There is a separation between self defence and possession of weapons in the legal system of England and Wales (for that matter Europe as well) - self defence is not affected by the legal status of the weapon held.

2. Proportional response is wrong, and especially concerning a home invasion. I am a proponent of the Castle Doctrine, and I strongly disagree with you on "The law already works well in the manner you would intend "castle doctrine" to be applied". In my state the general standard is "Reasonable fear for life and safety of myself and others", although I would not be averse to a Texas-style defence of property statute.

This is another myth, answered already by the link I posted above from Williams:

All putative self-defence, it seems, falls into the category of “necessary self-defence.†In this part of the judgment, the idea that the defendant’s belief is merely evidence of reasonableness has suddenly vanished; indeed, the very word “reasonable†is dropped. It seems, therefore, that the decision makes a radical change in the law. At least where the defender fears death or serious injury, there is no proportionality rule any longer; and a good thing too—in view of the jury’s verdict in Shannon.

Which is not that far from:

In my state the general standard is "Reasonable fear for life and safety of myself and others"

is it?

 

[publius]

There is a separation between self defence and possession of weapons in the legal system of England and Wales (for that matter Europe as well) - self defence is not affected by the legal status of the weapon held.

Is it affected by the legal ability to hold a weapon?

 

[agricola]

publius,

not sure what you mean - but the legal status of the carriage of a weapon is irrelevant when the Court determines if it was used in self defence.

 

[publius]

I mean it's hard to use a weapon in self defense if you don't have it, and making it illegal makes it harder to have it.

You're up very late or very early, so go to bed or good morning.

 

[agricola]

Its 1300 here.

Also, when one talks about burglars and self defence (as this thread is), the point you raise is even less valid because the laws against public carriage of knives, batons etc dont apply on private property.

 

[publius]

Hah! Got my time zones backward again. I do that. Anyway, good afternoon to you.

For self defense in public, I'd like to hear your response to my argument.

For self defense on private property, I believe it may apply as well. I don't know the rules over there, but I have a bunch of different guns readily accessible in my home. I don't have a license to own any of them because it's not needed here. My understanding is that your government would have made it harder for me to keep a variety of guns ready to use in my home, thus made it harder to use a gun in self defense.

But we Yanks have lots of mistaken impressions, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Hah! Got my time zones backward again. I do that. Anyway, good afternoon to you.

Publius, I did the same thing recently, asking why Agricola wasn't in bed. His reply was along similar lines. Surprising he has any respect for us, when we damn Yanks can't keep the time straight.

Anyway, saying that illegal weapons are legal to use for defense is a specious argument, and we will have to keep disagreeing on this (very large) point.

At least where the defender fears death or serious injury, there is no proportionality rule any longer

This doesn't seem to have worked for Martin. Does proportionality appear and disappear according to the prosecutor's whim? It is my understanding that the burglar was within the residence when he was shot, and according to the Castle Doctrine, it would have been a clean shoot. Lying to the police is a separate charge.

Obviously there are extremes examples for everything. If the burglar is found with his hands bound and a bullet hole in the back of his head, you are in trouble. However, in Castle Doctrine, the "fear for life and safety" is a given when someone breaks into your home. If the burglar is mobile and capable of harm, C.D. is generally an affirmative defense.

 

[agricola]

Dain,

The reason it didnt work for Martin is because he lied about what happened in order to make it look as if he was in danger, when in fact he was not - the evidence suggested he was climbing out of a window when Martin fired.

I appreciate this could be turned around to "climbing in", but when Martin insists on his story that he fired as he came down the stairs as a torch was shined on him - which was palpably false - its not an avenue open to his defence.

Would castle doctrine in that instance cover someone clearly fleeing?

Publius,

It does make self defence harder, but on the other hand there is less chance that the attacker will be armed. In any case, its a matter for the people of the UK as to which they want, and that law has been in place for fifty years without rivers of blood.

 

[publius]

You all make your choices, but I'd point out that attackers in every society are almost universally young men. Victims are frequently not. A young man doesn't need to be armed to defeat an old woman, but the old woman does need to be armed to be able to defend herself against a young man.