Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UK: 'Have-a-go heroes' get legal right to defend themselves
The Telegraph ^ | 7/15/2008 | Richard Edwards and Chris Hope

Posted on 07/15/2008 2:30:04 PM PDT by bruinbirdman

Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons sued against them.

However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.

The new laws follow a growing public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves and their own homes in the wake of a number of high profile cases.

In 2000, Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, was sent to prison for manslaughter for shooting an intruder in his home.

Earlier this year, Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, found himself facing a murder charge after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.

The Crown Prosecution Service eventually decided Mr Singh should not be charged.

Until now people have had to prove in court that they acted in self defence but the changes mean police and the Crown Prosecution Service will decide on cases before this stage.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; ruledbritannia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 07/15/2008 2:30:07 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

“Great” Britain ? Not for much longer.


2 posted on 07/15/2008 2:43:47 PM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it’s the responsibility of all of us. Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it – in other words, making a reality of justice.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Jack Straw, I kid you not

3 posted on 07/15/2008 2:44:25 PM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Could england be waking up!
4 posted on 07/15/2008 2:44:55 PM PDT by Charlespg (Peace= When we trod the ruins of Mecca and Medina under our infidel boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unkus
“Great” Britain ? Not for much longer.

Why? Because the British people are being encouraged to defend themselves AND to intervene strongly against crimes under commission?

Admit it, you didn't read the article. This is great news.

5 posted on 07/15/2008 2:46:32 PM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Ah... my beloved Britain... sounds like my home away from home is finally waking up. This is good news.


6 posted on 07/15/2008 2:52:33 PM PDT by RepoGirl ("Tom, I'm getting dead from you, but I'm not getting Undead..." -- Frasier Crane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Except for this statement, nor is lying in wait to ambush them

You have been robbed 3 times but cannot set yourself up to catch them the 4th time.

7 posted on 07/15/2008 2:52:41 PM PDT by rocksblues (Folks we are in trouble, "Mark Levin" 03/26/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
This is good news.

BTTT


8 posted on 07/15/2008 2:54:30 PM PDT by wastedyears (Show me your precious darlings, and I will crush them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues

Yeah you can

Get a really loud alarm. Have a baseball bat handy.

Sounds legal to me.


9 posted on 07/15/2008 2:56:05 PM PDT by wastedyears (Show me your precious darlings, and I will crush them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Talk about an all purpose phrase. “Have a go” is used to describe any activity one might consider engaging in. “Have a go heroes” who decide to take on a criminal.

Maybe the Brits are beginning to stir awake from some of their loony and self-destructive, upside-down policies instituted in past few decades.


10 posted on 07/15/2008 3:00:04 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Was the alarm installed after the 3rd incident, if so you were laying in wait for the perp.


11 posted on 07/15/2008 3:02:59 PM PDT by rocksblues (Folks we are in trouble, "Mark Levin" 03/26/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos of the
Munchkin Wrangler blog

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

12 posted on 07/15/2008 3:11:22 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Having custody of a loaded weapon does not arm you. The skill to use the weapon is what arms a man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

You’re right. I have a bad habit of skimming. Thanks.


13 posted on 07/15/2008 3:12:35 PM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
what a concept...
14 posted on 07/15/2008 3:51:09 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®-CTHULHU/NYARLATHOTEP'08=Nothing LESS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

What are they going to shoot them with...


15 posted on 07/15/2008 3:54:15 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Good luck over there. You're still about as far away from enjoying Nevada-style rights in self defense (and protection from prosecution and civil lawsuits) as Iraq is far away from becoming the next Switzerland, but at least it's something.

I hear that you can still get crossbows in England with relatively little hassle. That's what I'd have for home defense if I lived there. Only one shot, but they'll need Jesus on the scene to have any chance of survival.

16 posted on 07/15/2008 4:01:36 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

A step toward sanity.


17 posted on 07/15/2008 4:23:20 PM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted

With what? Are they going to de-criminalize firearms possession?

18 posted on 07/15/2008 4:35:28 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

For the first time in decades, at least.

19 posted on 07/15/2008 5:58:59 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

Shotguns and hunting rifles are not, and never have been, illegal in the UK. (though getting a licence for one in an urban area wouldn’t be easy).


20 posted on 07/16/2008 9:38:20 AM PDT by ThatchersKiddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson