Posted on 07/12/2006 4:05:09 AM PDT by IrishMike
The escape isn't part of the crime?
LOL I know its not right as a British subject to go on FR and correct misconceptions on my country.
After it makes some freepers feel good to think of us Brits as all spineless pinko softies hiding under are beds afraid to go out.
Every time I correct one individual someone else chimes in with another post.
LOL I am happy to debate with you as along as we don't go down the we kicked your ass in 1700s and saved it in the 1940s route.
Its covered in the post you read when you replied to me.
I am if nothing a gentleman where the ladies are concerned:
What if I chase them as they run off? This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
I know, that was me. My point was/is: If someone kicks my door down in the middle of the night I will either grab my loaded 12 Gauge Mossberg model 500 Persuader (if I think I have enough time) or my Taurus .357 Magnum and meet them at my bedroom door. If I'm in my living room I will grab my (again loaded) Smith & Wesson .38 Spl.+P. I'd rather not let them get within knife range. I feel bad that you Brits do not have the same God given rights we Yanks have. I didn't mean it as an insult to your country, which I believe is the best friend we have, I just wish your leaders were a little more conservative. (Ours too for that matter.)
I understand the sentiment - I just don't happen to agree with it. Nor do the police in the good ol' USA. Many a fleeing suspect has been shot in the back while running. If the police can do it - why not the ordinary citizen who has been the victim of the crime.
Case in point (long - prepared to be bored - I know the lawyer so he's where I got this). Some years ago several steamfitters (white) were staying at a motel while working on a local power plant. One went out to get pizza and left the door unlocked. A gentleman of color came in with a drawn gun and relieved them of their wallets, watches, any anything else of value that he could stuff into a pillow case. He neglected to look under the pillow. as he ran out the door, one of the steamfitters pulled a colt 1911 .45 and told him to halt. He kept running. the guy then fired several times. The thief kept running climbed over a fence (10 foot chain link) and disappeared into some nearby woods. They called the police - after a couple of hours the police showed up and took their statements. One cop showed a little initiative and braving the poison ivy looked in the woods. He found the thief dead.
Now the local DA charged the steamfitter (after all this was a white man killing a black man and couldn't be ignored in Atlanta's black racist political climate) It went to trial and the jury found the steamfitter not guilty. It seems that they too were of the opinion that the escape is part of the crime, and that the guy was justified in shooting the robber. (oh and BTW the robber had just gotten out of jail the day before, but this bit of evidence was supressed by the DA). The point of the long ramble is that a jury here decided that shooting a fleeing robber is OK.
"It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders"
Yeah, sure
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1333242004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/13/npolis13.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/02/nburg02.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=C4XQSQHE10DYDQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/02/06/nfight06.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/12/nfight212.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/26/nfight26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/26/ixnewstop.html
I have perhaps a score of links on this issue. The bottom line is that the Home office and the Metropolitan Police are political entities and they spin better than the DNC
I have used self defense at home with a golf club, yes I was question by the police to check I had or hadn't committed a crime and I was let off.
They will investigate
The reply I gave is very clear cut and will stand up if it goes to the courts.
If thats the law in America then that is the law in America.
I am not saying Britain is perfect,we have a high crime rate as does America in fact we have similar crime in similar neighbor hoods, drug gangs in slum areas.
You have the right to own guns, enshrined in your constitution we don't.
Yes you are more defended than me, but house breaking with a gun in Britain is still pretty rare, the one time I was broken into my golf club worked quite well.
LOL In fact even if he had a gun I don't think he would have had time to use it.
most gun crime over here is gang on gang over the drug trade.
My hope is that both countries manage to clear up the crime rate.
I don't look at stories of Crime in America, as proof that the American way has failed its just proof that like us and like all nations you have a criminal element.
It was recognized by your Bill of Rights 1689, which helped to generate the US's Bill of Rights, but your more proximate ancestors have seen fit to ignore it.
"The Bill of Rights 1689 is largely a statement of certain positive rights that its authors considered that citizens and/or residents of a free and democratic society ought to have. It asserts the Subject's right to petition the Monarch and the Subject's right to bear arms for defence."
I don't know, I've never been there, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ruling liberal elite has a right to self defense that the serfs lack there as well as here.
You're almost certainly right that Sennit would not have carried a gun. The other people attacked by these scum, prior to the murder of Senitt, might well have been packing.
One of them might have made these criminals rethink their actions before they killed this man.
I will add, while sadly rolling my eyes, that if an armed citizen had shot one or two of these criminals, D.C. would have been a better place.
Incorrect. A person residing in The United States on a work visa or as a resident alien can legally own all the guns he wants, and avail himself of the local carry permit laws.
I'm not relying on any sort of outdated personal experience here, since my family left Manchester over fifty years ago, during the horrific but long-gone regime of Old Labour. Instead, I'm using reports from friends and relatives who still live there. The statement from Crown Prosecution you cited is a desperate attempt to give the impression that Britain follows the American doctrine of proportional force in such cases. For the real legal attitude, look here:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004
Small wonder that Tony Martin was a national hero in this country, with many ordinary Americans contributing to his defense fund. His actions would have won him the key to the city anywhere outside Massachusetts and New York.
FReepers need to check out the excellent Daily Telegraph series on British crime. This article on the self-defense situation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/02/nburg02.xml
also has some interesting follow-up links. Folks, something to peruse while cleaning your Glocks.
If I was you I would concentrate more at home and deal with your own countries crime problems before worrying about other countries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.