Replies

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. 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. As the Director of Public Prosecutions has just reminded us in a radio interview I've been listening to, for every much-publicised but rare case where a householder in these circumstances has been prosecuted, there have been approximately fifty cases where no action has been taken against the householder, even when that householder has used a firearm to lethal effect. The law chooses (arguably wisely) not to attempt to define what constitutes reasonable force, but to leave this to be determined by the very different individual circumstances of each case. Only rarely, when the Crown Prosecution Service decides there is a case to answer, is a prosecution brought: and it's then up to the jury, with direction from the judge on the legal precedents, to use their judgement on whether the force used is or is not reasonable in this particular case. The Tony Martin prosecution was brought only because the intruder was outside the property and running away when shot in the back: and in that case the jury decided (although the judge made it quite clear the arguments were finely balanced) that the degree of force used was not reasonable. Part of the problem with the massive publicity at home and abroad since then is that the impression given is that the Tony Martin prosecution is the norm in Britain, when in fact it's very much the exception. Oh, and before someone asks how lethal force can legally be used when there are no legally-owned guns in the UK, just a reminder that many guns (mostly shotguns) can be legally owned, are widespread, and have been used to lethal effect without prosecution in these circumstances.

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.

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.