Great Britain: No change on burglar law (Gov't still wants you to hide in bathroom during break-ins)

The Sun (U.K.) ^ | January 11, 2005

[Stoat]

No change ... Charles Clarke

BREAKING NEWS

No change on burglar law

By SUN ONLINE REPORTER

THERE will be no reform of the law on how much force householders can use to tackle a burglar, the Home Secretary has decided.

 

Charles Clarke ruled that existing legislation was "sound", but needs to be better explained.

Instead, a new campaign will educate the public about how far they can go to defend their property under current law.

Prime Minister Tony Blair last month said he would support a change in the law, if Government consultations showed it was necessary.

The move followed Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens's statement that people should be allowed to use what force was necessary when tackling intruders without facing prosecution.

At present the law says “reasonable force” can be used by householders, but campaigners complain that too many are subject to police investigation of their actions.

Debate on the issue followed the death of John Monckton who was stabbed to death during a burglary at his home in London's Chelsea last November.

• Ninety-nine percent of Brits believe they should have the right to defend their homes against burglars, a survey says.

[Stoat]

Yes! Actually, under Magna Carta, there should have been a Committee of Barons who called for an uprising to distress and distrain the Government, until it again respected property rights in England, throughout most of the Twentieth Century. Unfortunately, many reprints are of a later version, not the original 1215 text that King John agreed to, but those provisions are in there. England was never supposed to accept an abrogation of private property rights again.

Unfortunately, it appears that the current crop of British lawmakers owe far more allegiance to Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto than the Magna Carta.  The good, law abiding people of Great Britain need our help, but I wish that I knew how to do more rather than to merely offer polite verbal support.

By the way, was Clarke sober when he made this decision? He looks like a fellow who clocks far more pub hours than those in intellectual pursuit.

You are quite likely spot-on, as alcoholism is a popular fetish of many elected officials on both sides of the pond.  His visage, however, suggests a particularly enthusiastic embrace of this activity, as you so perceptively indicate.  His official pronouncements further bolster this theory.

Yes! Actually, under Magna Carta, there should have been a Committee of Barons who called for an uprising to distress and distrain the Government, until it again respected property rights in England, throughout most of the Twentieth Century. Unfortunately, many reprints are of a later version, not the original 1215 text that King John agreed to, but those provisions are in there. England was never supposed to accept an abrogation of private property rights again.

Unfortunately, it appears that the current crop of British lawmakers owe far more allegiance to Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto than the Magna Carta.  The good, law abiding people of Great Britain need our help, but I wish that I knew how to do more rather than to merely offer polite verbal support.

By the way, was Clarke sober when he made this decision? He looks like a fellow who clocks far more pub hours than those in intellectual pursuit.

You are quite likely spot-on, as alcoholism is a popular fetish of many elected officials on both sides of the pond.  His visage, however, suggests a particularly enthusiastic embrace of this activity, as you so perceptively indicate.  His official pronouncements further bolster this theory.

[NH Liberty]

Hi Stoat (and Slipperduke)

Re your (Stoat) #24, I say...

Bravo! [sustained applause and standing ovation]

Very well said. We have many friends and relatives in the UK and wish the best for them in their quest for re-establishing their right to defend themselves, at the very least, in their own homes. But the problem is exactly how you stated it. I lived in Britain for many years and worked in the newsmedia there, and the fact is that they (the media) have so thoroughly brainwashed the populace (including the lawmakers) with distortions about guns and gun crime in the U.S., that even many Conservatives in the UK are hesitant to restore their own rights to self-defense.

After the Tony Martin debacle, I was expecting a substantial shift in public opinion in favor of restoring self-defense rights, but since I haven't lived there during or after that period, I don't know whether that has happened.

Perhaps, Slipperduke can offer his two cents (or tuppence!) on the post-Tony Martin environment.

Any thoughts, Slipperduke?

[from occupied ga]

The fact is that British citizens do have, and have always had, the right to use reasonable force, which can include lethal force, on intruders to their property.

Tell that to Tony Martin

[Ohioan]

Britain needs a modern Kipling to capture the inanity of what prevails as policy in Whitehall, and the absurd inability of the people to even assert their traditional identity--I am talking about their lines of descent, which were always important to Western Man since Biblical days, up until the advent of Twentieth Century "Liberalism," that euphemism for the nihilistic Fabian Socialist assault on civilization.

Of course, the American equivalent would quake in their boots, if there were to be a real revival of spirit across the pond. It could well be contagious. It was just that fear, which prompted the pathological need to destroy Rhodesia, whose example of standing into the breach threatened the values of Western social retreat, to which we have all been consigned in the Leftist world view.

Forgive me for a bit of rant, inspired by this thread.

William Flax

[Stoat]

There's widespread misunderstanding about the nature of British law on this issue, not only outside the UK (as some of these posts demonstrate) but within the country also.

I have no doubt that there are indeed misunderstandings, but there lies the rub.  In the U.S., there are no widespread misunderstandings.  Every law-abiding citizen has the very clear right to defend his person or another person with lethal force if necessary and if warranted by the circumstances.  Very simple and straightforward.  Same for home-invasion robberies...if someone breaks into your house, you are entirely allowed to, in fact encouraged, to blow the scumbag's head clean off.  (after-burglary cleanup is still the homeowner's responsibility, however).

The mere fact that there is misunderstanding indicates that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.  Our British friends deserve not only the right and the means to effectively defend themselves, but also a clear understanding of what their rights and responsibilities are in these weighty matters.  In this regard and many others, the UK press has been woefully deficient.

[from occupied ga]

blow the scumbag's head clean off. (after-burglary cleanup is still the homeowner's responsibility, however).

Not in the Kerry states. Self defense is a much more serious crime than robbery in NYC, NJ, MA, CT IL (Chicago especially),ME, MD, RI, and Kalifornia.

[Stoat]

blow the scumbag's head clean off. (after-burglary cleanup is still the homeowner's responsibility, however).

Not in the Kerry states. Self defense is a much more serious crime than robbery in NYC, NJ, MA, CT IL (Chicago especially),ME, MD, RI, and Kalifornia.

Even in the case of a clear-cut home invasion robbery with an armed intruder?  This is news to me, and I'm very sorry to hear it.  It shows that we still have a great deal of work to do in ensuring basic rights to all law-abiding citizens of the United States.

blow the scumbag's head clean off. (after-burglary cleanup is still the homeowner's responsibility, however).

Not in the Kerry states. Self defense is a much more serious crime than robbery in NYC, NJ, MA, CT IL (Chicago especially),ME, MD, RI, and Kalifornia.

[from occupied ga]

Even in the case of a clear-cut home invasion robbery with an armed intruder?

Yep. Just last year a NYC man was sentenced to prison for defending his daughter from a home invader in her bedroom. His crime? nominally using an unregistered handgun. His real crime? self-defense in the Peoples Democracy of NYC.

[television is just wrong]

LOL, so the perpetrator knows you will be in the bathroom??

[IamConservative]

Here's an idea, why not enact a law: "Everyone must hide their jewelry in the toilet tank."

When the burgler comes in, beat the sh$% out of him.

[from occupied ga]

great deal of work to do in ensuring basic rights to all law-abiding citizens of the United States

It's not worth it. People in the Kerry states don't want rights. With rights come terrifying (to them at least) responsibilities. Take a poll in Chicago, Boston or NYC on whether gun ownership should be restricted more, less or the same as now. Most likely 80% would say more. These people aren't worth saving. they should be given to Quebec and simultaneously become French and Canadian.

[Stoat]

His crime? nominally using an unregistered handgun.

So then his actual conviction was for a gun ownership violation, not for offing the burglar?

Not trying to be picky or argumentative, just trying to understand  :-)

Normally, my guess would be that even in communities that have these horrific, unconstitutional gun- control laws, a jury presented with an otherwise law-abiding citizen who terminated a rampaging, murderous scumbag might be forced into a position of having no other option than to convict for the gun ownership violation, but they would use any means necessary to acquit the victim in the matter of capping the burglar.  Most sane citizens can easily imagine themselves in a similar circumstance and so are likely to have sympathy with the victim.

As the saying goes, I would much rather be judged by twelve than be carried by six  :-)

[from occupied ga]

Technically yes; however, NYC makes it almost impossible to register a handgun. My memory is that he had applied for the registration some months prior to the incident, but the city government was stalling as usual with non-celebrities.

Bernard Goetz was convicted of a gun violation - not shooting armed robbers. He was then further sued in civil court of causing pain and suffering to the one remaining scumbag and the NYC jury of his peers awarded the robber some outrageous sum like $250 million.

[Stoat]

NYC makes it almost impossible to register a handgun

True, and the Sullivan laws that are at the root of this are evil and should be overturned.  This is one of many reasons why many people choose to live in other places than in New York City.

Bernard Goetz was convicted of a gun violation - not shooting armed robbers. He was then further sued in civil court of causing pain and suffering to the one remaining scumbag and the NYC jury of his peers awarded the robber some outrageous sum like $250 million.
 

My recollection of the Goetz case is that his conviction was limited to the gun violation until he made some incredibly stupid, after-the-fact public statements...something suggesting that he meant to kill the scumbags or that he was happy about it or something like that.  This stupid statement, made long after his gun ownership conviction, gave the prosecution the wherewithal to nail him on civil charges....he brought that upon himself to some degree and it could have been avoided, if my memory serves correctly.

At least in the USA we have the freedom to move to a different city, county or state if we disagree with the gun laws as they exist in a given community.  If you want to legally own a fully automatic weapon, you can in Class 3 states such as Oregon, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and I think Georgia if my memory serves.  Yes, there's a mountain of paperwork, expense and silliness associated with it but a it can be done if you're a good, law-abiding and honest citizen.

My hope is that more British citizens will come to visit us in the USA, where they will find that despite the pronouncements of their hysterically anti-American, Leftist press, we are generally good, friendly and law-abiding people.  Perhaps if more Brits come to visit us and see with their own eye what's possible in the grand scheme of things, they will take these ideas back across the pond and press for reforms.

Bernard Goetz was convicted of a gun violation - not shooting armed robbers. He was then further sued in civil court of causing pain and suffering to the one remaining scumbag and the NYC jury of his peers awarded the robber some outrageous sum like $250 million.
 

My recollection of the Goetz case is that his conviction was limited to the gun violation until he made some incredibly stupid, after-the-fact public statements...something suggesting that he meant to kill the scumbags or that he was happy about it or something like that.  This stupid statement, made long after his gun ownership conviction, gave the prosecution the wherewithal to nail him on civil charges....he brought that upon himself to some degree and it could have been avoided, if my memory serves correctly.

At least in the USA we have the freedom to move to a different city, county or state if we disagree with the gun laws as they exist in a given community.  If you want to legally own a fully automatic weapon, you can in Class 3 states such as Oregon, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and I think Georgia if my memory serves.  Yes, there's a mountain of paperwork, expense and silliness associated with it but a it can be done if you're a good, law-abiding and honest citizen.

My hope is that more British citizens will come to visit us in the USA, where they will find that despite the pronouncements of their hysterically anti-American, Leftist press, we are generally good, friendly and law-abiding people.  Perhaps if more Brits come to visit us and see with their own eye what's possible in the grand scheme of things, they will take these ideas back across the pond and press for reforms.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The fact is that British citizens do have, and have always had, the right to use reasonable force, which can include lethal force, on intruders to their property.... The law chooses (arguably wisely) not to attempt to define what constitutes reasonable force

That is the totally stupid thing that leaves innocent victims of crime always in legal limbo, in the US as well as the UK. You want a definition of "reasonable force", I'll give you a perfect one! "Reasonable force" is any force that doesn't kill innocent bystanders. A hand grenade, for example, would be "unreasonable", IF anyone else besides the criminal is within the kill zone. The purpose of these self-defense prosecution is to maintain government power over the citizens and to insure that citizens remain too timid to maintain the power to challenge an overreaching government. It lets the government create a chilling effect on the independence of the public while encouraging criminals. The criminal element is actually a defacto accomplice in increasing government power, not to defend against the criminal element which it never rises to extirpate, but over citizens. If there were no criminals to defend, there would be no reason to limit the arsenal and tactics of the people in a dormant self-defense. But protecting the "life of the criminal" gives government a plausible reason to control the people which it uses the criminal element to do. The government is however smart enough to actually prosecute only those cases in which a confused jury can be made to side with the criminal and government power. If the government prosecuted more, the people would demand the whole thing be changed. So the government is satisfied to maintain growing power with a chilling effect rather than naked control. I once took someone from the UK to an indoor shooting range where we expended hundreds of 9mm rounds from my gun. He told me it was a thrilling experience of freedom he would never forget. And if anyone breaks into my home or attacks me on the street, I will give them an experience of freedom they'll never forget.

[Winniesboy]

I don't disagree with anything in this, and there's no doubt that at the very least the law needs clarification: although a great deal of the confusion is the result of ill-informed and tendentious reporting rather than the nature of the law itself. There's obviously a difference between the situation here and in the US in that the body of case law in the UK has set a higher threshold for the acceptability of the use of force in defence than is the case in the US. The point I continue to make, however, is that this is a matter of degree rather than the absolute chasm which many people believe it to be.

[Caipirabob]

"The death march of our society, our very culture, shall continue unabated, thank you."

[Caipirabob]

They can always throw a glass of hot tea at the burglar.

Or seek revenge by offering them stale biscuits? Nah, then the burglar could sue...

[Slipperduke]

If I'm ever in the US, which I hope to be soon, I might just take you up on that offer!