Former Gurkha detains knife-wielding mugger despite having blade embedded in his arm

An ex-Gurkha forced to defend himself when attacked by a man wielding a knife only realised afterwards a six-inch blade was embedded in his arm.

Mr Phlamachha was out for an evening walk with his wife Asha, 38, when they stopped to have a look in the window of a health shop, in Maidstone, Kent.

Suddenly Mr Phlamachha was thrust up against the wall and allegedly told to 'hand over the money', or get stabbed.

The former soldier and black belt in karate and taekwondo, said 'yes' - then calmly warned the attacker: 'First you should know who I am.'

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

The trouble is that the law is muddy, far too open to whimsy and opinion of the particular case, instead of an objective standard.

I compare that to the clarity of a newly elected Maricopa county prosecutor, back in the 1970s, when home defense was a big issue nationally. At his first press conference, he was asked “What should you do if someone breaks into your home?”

To which he replied, “You shoot the son of a bitch!” And for all intents and purposes, that was and has remained the law since then. No room for judicial whimsy, cunning rhetoric by ambitious defense counsels, or a lack of impartiality or prejudice on other accounts.

The homeowner may be an ugly old black man, and the robber an attractive blonde cheerleader, yet he will not even be charged. There is justice and fairness before the law.

Can Britain claim that?

There is a myth in America that the Brits have no right to self-defence, that they cant protect themselves. You read it here all the time.

This is bunkum. And as I have posted here many times, I myself (Sept 2008) actually have personal victim experience of this issue (attempted burglary and assault).

Whilst it is true that the US has more leeway than the UK (because many householders carry guns), the British have the right of self defence, to death if necessary (as we saw in a case last year). And the last two govts have in fact STRENGTHENED the law on behalf of victims/homeowners on self-defence.

While I agree that it has been strengthened of late, Americans have two perspectives, of the horror stories that came out of mostly England for years; and the other is the relative ease by which Americans can smite villains without significant legal threat in many cases.

This relativity is important, as in the case of Germans who for many years drove on much of the Autobahn at speed, and embraced that ability as a precious right, to whom the 88.5km speeds of America’s freeways felt like driving in a parking lot.

That is, from here, Britain looks like a dangerous place.

I hear you... but the problem is borne out in the link given above that discusses the British law and some case history. The law is monstrously complex when it doesn’t need to be. My main complaint with the British approach to self sefense is that it must only be ~reasonable~ and ~proportionate~ to the threat. The defender can use more force than the attacker, but only just barely enough more. It’s then the burden of the defender to prove that they didn’t use too much force in their own defense.

The presumption should always lie with the defender that they did what they needed to do, without any second-guessing by juries or prosecutors that weren’t there.

from here, Britain looks like a dangerous place.

It's indeed unfortunate that this impression has taken root in the U.S. as widely as seems to be the case. There seems to be little that those of us who know better can say in response which won't be summarily dismissed. Illustrate with personal anecdote, and we're accused of burying our heads in the sand, ignoring the reality around us, being blind to what's happening elsewhere than in our little safe enclave etc. etc. Respond with statistics or explanation of the law, and we're accused of hiding behind generalisation and abstraction, selectivity in the choice of statistics or even of quoting questionable evidence etc etc. In truth, I suspect that the only way anybody who holds this view might be convinced is by spending time here - and by that I mean a substantial period of time, not the snapshot observations of a tourist.

...but here's my personal experience, anyway. I've lived in England nearly 70 years now, not a particularly sheltered life, in many different areas (north, west midlands, south, southwest), in big cities, medium-sized towns, and in the countryside.

During those neat 70 years, have I ever experienced or felt in imminent threat of physical violence of any kind?

No.

Have any of my immediate family or friends ever been subject to or threatened by physical violence?

Not that I'm aware of.

Has a violent incident ever taken place within the near neighborhood of my home?

Not that I can recollect, or at least not affecting anybody I have known personally, even if only by sight.

Have I ever felt that owning a handgun might be desirable or useful?

No.

Has any of my family, including past generations, ever owned a handgun, even when there was no legal obstacle to doing so?

Not that I'm aware of.

Do I know anybody who owns a gun of any kind?

Plenty. All shotguns or a variety of sporting rifles. All owned for farming or sporting purposes. All owned without interruption through the various stages of gun control legislation.

Have any of these ever expressed to me a wish to hold other kinds of gun, including handguns, if it were legal to do so?

No, although the subject has occasionally been discussed in my presence when gun crime happens to be in the news.

And yet I see equal or greater condemnation of our gun rights in America from Britain, even though many of us can match what you wrote, outside of not owning guns.

Gun violence in the US is likely much like gun violence in Britain, it is in the big cities, by criminals against criminals. It is only of concern when criminals decide to prey on honest citizens, and that is where the difference lies.

The United States is fourth in land area of nations in the world, just slightly smaller than China and Canada. The UK is 80th, with just 93,800 square miles for 63 million people at a density of 673 people per square mile.

While the US has 315m people, they are far more spread out, with a population density of 89 people per square mile. And since most people live in much higher density on the borders, much of the interior is mostly empty.

This difference in area matters, because both the US and UK have around 300 police officers for every 100,000 people. And the US police are responsible for seven times the area.

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.