What is the UK becoming?

[Fortiesboy 3]

For some years now i have been of the opinion that the law is more interested in looking after the criminal than their victims.

And forget Justice -IMHO, lawyers are only interested in the law- certainly not justice.

 

Today I read how we should all be grateful to a judge who has given a chap a suspended sentence because he was a decent man defending himself! Well I say the judge's action is a disgrace. He should be overturning the conviction.

It seems that this decent man- and by all accounts he is a decent law abiding man - was attacked by a thug with an axe. So this man defended himself with a knife, and won. And what does the law do? Convicts him and gives him a criminal record.

 

I am so perplexed and outraged by this. How the hell do you get to be a criminal by defending yourself against being attacked by someone who is using an axe? Is not your life in danger when this happens? And are you not entitled to defend your life even if it means the attacker losing his?

 

Every time I see a warfilm now, or some programme commemorating those who died in WW 2 for this

Country - UK - I am physically dismayed and depressed and wonder just what the hell the poor bastards died for.

 

Enough is enough!

[dsawan 613]

This is the age of the THUG where they gett off easily. same ehre in the States.

[shotdown 8]

For some years now i have been of the opinion that the law is more interested in looking after the criminal than their victims.

And forget Justice -IMHO, lawyers are only interested in the law- certainly not justice.

 

Today I read how we should all be grateful to a judge who has given a chap a suspended sentence because he was a decent man defending himself! Well I say the judge's action is a disgrace. He should be overturning the conviction.

It seems that this decent man- and by all accounts he is a decent law abiding man - was attacked by a thug with an axe. So this man defended himself with a knife, and won. And what does the law do? Convicts him and gives him a criminal record.

 

I am so perplexed and outraged by this. How the hell do you get to be a criminal by defending yourself against being attacked by someone who is using an axe? Is not your life in danger when this happens? And are you not entitled to defend your life even if it means the attacker losing his?

 

Every time I see a warfilm now, or some programme commemorating those who died in WW 2 for this

Country - UK - I am physically dismayed and depressed and wonder just what the hell the poor bastards died for.

 

Enough is enough!

 

Right now things are very similar here in Spain. The way thing are going nowadays, a time will come when if you are attacked and choose to defend yourself, you will have to make sure to not only win, but also kill whoever is attacking you and make sure the body is never found. Any other way you'll be in deep trouble just for defending yourself.

[Icarus999 70]

Understand that the act of self defense means taking bold decisive action... as an individual. That mentality is not compatible with the direction in which they wish to take your society. Citizens with a spine who come to the conclusion that "enough is enough" can be troublesome for corrupt officials

Edited February 13, 2010 by Icarus999

[Slartibartfast 153]

One word Disgusting... A guy comes at you with an Axe and you can't defend yourself... Me I would have made sure the thug wasn't around afterwards to say anything... Thankfully the Jury at a case last week got it right guy defending himself against 2 thugs who broke into his home both armed and he attacked them with a sword he had slicing one of the thugs ear off... After they threatened to kill the family etc etc... Judge wanted him sending down but the Jury returned in 15 minutes to clear him

[OvS 8]

One word Disgusting... A guy comes at you with an Axe and you can't defend yourself... Me I would have made sure the thug wasn't around afterwards to say anything... Thankfully the Jury at a case last week got it right guy defending himself against 2 thugs who broke into his home both armed and he attacked them with a sword he had slicing one of the thugs ear off... After they threatened to kill the family etc etc... Judge wanted him sending down but the Jury returned in 15 minutes to clear him

 

 

Leaving an unregistered throw-down weapon (with a few shots from it fired into walls) next to the dead Thug always helps.

[Ruggbutt 45]

What the above story tells me is that if I'm ever in the UK and I have to hurt or kill someone in self defense then the best thing for me to do is to leave the scene immediately, followed by leaving the country. There's no reason to be law abiding when the courts won't allow it.

[Lt. James Cater 62]

I was reading of this case yesterday on the Daily Mail site.

 

Next month i plan to go to the British Consulate in LA to begin proceedings for a visa. One thing i am taking to the UK with me is a zero disrepect attitude from punks and a healthy contempt for the system when i do have to deal with cops and the courts.

 

Two years ago some guy near where i lived shot dead someone trying to break into his house,the perp also had a some kind of weapon in his hand. The homeowner gunned the dude down THROUGH the door and the law here said "good job".

 

The more i read of these things in the UK the more i figure on smuggling my guns. Wanna play "Hard Man Gangsta"? I'll show you how it's done. 24/7,365,366 on a leap year it's on.

 

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Two years ago some guy near where i lived shot dead someone trying to break into his house,the perp also had a some kind of weapon in his hand. The homeowner gunned the dude down THROUGH the door and the law here said "good job".

 

This is very good news. I've heard that Arizona has been going soft, like so many of the other states, at least Nevada hasn't lost it's nerve yet.

 

 

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six.

 

Just so long as those aren't 12 demoncrats. With all the worthless pussy liberals (yeah, I know, very redundant when dealing with those types, any of those 3 words alone sums them all up lol), the criminal is the victim if you don't go along with his demands, if you stand and fight, then you are clearly an independent individualist, and a threat to the "greater good" (which demands that you sacrifice all - your income, your privacy, and your freedom). And if you use a gun to do it..... well hell, you are basically satan himself come to this mortal plane.

 

Like OvS said, best to have an aliby weapon, kill the perp, and also to know the law, and have a good lawyer.

 

 

[xclusiv8 35]

Its the same in Sweden. THe law sais, you are only allowed to use as much force as neccesary to save your self. That means if you hit a person and he is down for a couple of seconds so that you can escape then it is self defence. You are not allowed to kill someone nomatter the purpose of the offender.

I can agree with this to some degree, there are situations where you have no witnesses and its only word against word. If you kill someone in a situation like that, why should anyone belive you? Because your a good man? Bulls**t, everyone lies. The law is no easy thing. Lawbreakers are bad, but that does not give you the right to take his life.

 

You know what pisses me off? Not long ago i read about a guy that saved a woman from a car accident in US. During the process the woman lost all felling in her legs and is now paralyzed. If the guy had choosen to not act as fast as he did she would have been burned alive. The sad part is that she sued him because shes paralyzed today. She wanted him to leave her so that the rescue crew could save her. Funny thing is her car was all burned down when they arrivd.

[UnknownPilot 33]

Lawbreakers are bad, but that does not give you the right to take his life.

 

So that the maggot can then go on to victimize someone else? Someone who may be unable to ward off his desires? Someone who may have encountered him at just the wrong time and be more than just mugged, but raped and/or killed?

 

No, this idea that you must only give yourself an opportunity to run is utter bulls**t, it's part in parcel of giving up any and all aspects of independence and individuality - of elevating the perpetrator and denigrating the law-abiding citizen. It is, at it's core, a process of, sorry for the coarse language, but... pussifying the population. Forcing them to be ever more reliant on an increasingly invasive and pervasive 'big brother'.

 

Nobody should ever be required by law to run. Nor should anyone be punished for helping others either - be it intervening in a crime in process, or pulling someone from a burning wreck.

 

xclusiv, this is not an attack on you, so I hope you don't take it as such. It's just a sore spot for me, the direction the entire world is going is nothing but bad.

 

[+Baltika 84]

There are 3 requirements to establish self-defence in Scotland (which has distinct criminal law system from England/Wales/Northern Ireland)

 

1. Be under imminent danger/perceived threat of attack (physical violence)

 

2. No other option than to use force in self-defence (like it or not, the law requires you to run, provided this is possible, the whole circumstances are to be considered by the jury). So, if you are backed into a corner, pinned down, surrounded, blocked from leaving a room or otherwise restrained, or confronted face to face with an armed assailant, the use of force is permissible. Also, my personal view is that the option to run is not available to a person in their home with spouse/children/family members present, although this has not been definitively tested in the Scottish Courts.

 

3. Force used in self-defence must not be "cruelly excessive," again a matter for the jury to decide, based on the whole circumstances of the incident. The Judge is required by law to direct the jury that allowance must be made for "the heat of the moment."

 

"Self-defence" is an absolute defence in Scotland (resulting in acquittal, should the jury accept that defence) to any charge of assault, up to and including murder. The overwhelming consideration for the jury is whether the use of force was reasonable in all the circumstances of the incident. Self defence of another is permitted, so if your friend is under attack, you are permitted to use reasonable force to defend him/her, provided there is no other option.

 

Also, all decisions as to whether to prosecute in Scotland are taken by the Lord Advocate (or her deputies) who is head of the prosecution service, independent of government, police, or the alleged "victim" of any crime. I have recent experience of cases in Scotland where persons attacked by burglars in their own homes, who used deadly force to defend their families (although no deaths resulted), were not prosecuted, but rather were witnesses against the burglars. Also, a more dubious situation, where a group of people came to the door of an individual's flat and seriously injured him with knives, his friend, who ran out of the flat and attacked the group with a samurai sword, was acquitted of attempted murder by the jury, despite life-threatening injuries being inflicted by the swordsman. But then, that was in Glasgow, where everyone has a samurai sword hanging by the door for just such eventualities

 

@Fortiesboy, I haven't read about the case you mention. Was the accused convicted after trial (by judge or jury), or did he plead guilty? In England as well as Scotland, the law requires people under attack to run if that is an option, otherwise in law the defence of self-defence is not avialable.

 

If he went to trial and was convicted, the jury did not accept his defence, and the judge has shown leniency by not sending him to jail. Maybe the guy with the axe found out your decent man was sleeping with axe-man's wife? There are always two sides to every story.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Baltika

[eraser_tr 29]

 

Just so long as those aren't 12 demoncrats. With all the worthless pussy liberals (yeah, I know, very redundant when dealing with those types, any of those 3 words alone sums them all up lol), the criminal is the victim if you don't go along with his demands

 

WTF? Seriously? That is complete and utter bulls**t. I'm the most liberal guy around (that damn Marx must have been a Glenn Beck fanatic ) and yet there's not a person more in favor of doing whatever you have to in defense. Someone begins threatening me and all bets are off. It's a persistent fallacy of branding "liberals" as soft, usually spouted by the sewage balloon (rush).

 

Now there is a pussification going on in society, but it has nothing to do with politics. It's because all semblance of judgement and flexibility is being removed from a dumbed down society. According to the law, one has to do like xclusive8 said, use only the bare necessity of force to protect yourself. It's the same s**t in schools with "zero tolerance" policies on fighting, where they'll suspend/expell a kid who was defending himself the same as the thug-wannabe-brat. In response to what someone should do then? they suggest this kind of bearhug thing to keep them from moving their arms and striking at you.

 

My logic is simple: Even using only the minimum ammount of force to protect myself, my protection and being "safe" means that threat can no longer cause any harm to me. That means being incapacitated, which if they're still breathing, means they're going to have one hell of a medical bill and alot of physical therapy to be able to wipe themselves again.

Edited February 14, 2010 by eraser_tr

[serverandenforcer 33]

That means being incapacitated, which if they're still breathing, means they're going to have one hell of a medical bill and alot of physical therapy to be able to wipe themselves again.

 

Just as an FYI... due to how screwed up the law is, that criminal can twist the system around to where you will pay for those medical bills. Better just make it a lucky shot that killed him.

 

For Security Forces, our use of force model basically states, "Use the amount of force necessary to stop the act." The use of force model is regulated by 1.) subject's/suspect's actions, 2.) the threat perceived, and 3.) officer response. If I can remember correctly, these are the threat levels: 1.)compliant, 2.)non-compliant, 3.)passive agressive, 4.)active agressive, 5.)assualtive/bodily harm, 6.)lethal/serious bodily harm. If the guy is throwing fists at you (classified as threat level 5), you don't go straight to lethal force. You use the force that is reasonable to counter the suspect's actions. In this case, pepper spray, tazer, batton, a good solid maglight, and if non of those things are available, then it's time to get down on the ground and go at it with the dumb***... hopefully with back up responding. However... if the suspect is striking at your head, with such force that can cause significant/serious injury (threat level 6), then the suspect's actions are then perceived as being lethal, and the use of lethal force is authorized. Only once was I in a position to possibly use lethal force... but that was over in Iraq... and the ***holes got away before I could take action... kind of hard to immediately return fire when they fired a mortar at you at a range within 300 meters... first response was hit the deck... second response was to get some new underwear. Thank goodness those guys can't aim for ****.

 

Anyways, here's a link that can explain better on our use of force and some techniques that we're supposed to use (they actually would get you killed than save your hide - but the USAF thinks that they're good techniques)... http://www.scribd.com/doc/5022142/US-Air-Force-Use-of-Force-31222

Edited February 14, 2010 by serverandenforcer

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Its the same in Sweden. THe law sais, you are only allowed to use as much force as neccesary to save your self. That means if you hit a person and he is down for a couple of seconds so that you can escape then it is self defence. You are not allowed to kill someone nomatter the purpose of the offender.

I can agree with this to some degree, there are situations where you have no witnesses and its only word against word. If you kill someone in a situation like that, why should anyone belive you? Because your a good man? Bulls**t, everyone lies. The law is no easy thing. Lawbreakers are bad, but that does not give you the right to take his life.

 

You know what pisses me off? Not long ago i read about a guy that saved a woman from a car accident in US. During the process the woman lost all felling in her legs and is now paralyzed. If the guy had choosen to not act as fast as he did she would have been burned alive. The sad part is that she sued him because shes paralyzed today. She wanted him to leave her so that the rescue crew could save her. Funny thing is her car was all burned down when they arrivd.

 

Actually, just about everywhere here has "Good Samaritan" laws. The court will most likely throw the case out.

 

"Minimum force" is quite a tricky thing to judge as well as how much of a threat is present. I'll use myself as an example. I have a knee that is in such bad condition i can't even run across the street. What am i supposed to do in case of attack? I sure as hell can't run for it. Also you have to factor in where i'm at. Until recently, i lived in one of those gang infested Barrio neighborhoods that you typically see in a Hollywood film. Like it or not, my first inclination is to factor threat by ethnic type, gender and age. Then i figure on numbers and the probabilty of weapons and what type. Sometimes i also have to factor in gang affiliation(s)and/or turf issues.

 

I've been arrested and locked up before but i always got away clean in the end. Chances are my opponnent won't have the same kind of record. You see, sometimes you have to know just what will fly in court and what the jury will buy.

 

Let me sum this up from my personal experiences and observations.

 

Say i'm going to the 7-11 to get beer late at night and someone jumps me. Maybe i'll do six months at the most for not having a concealed weapons permit for my legally owned and registered pistol. I'll skate on my knife because it's legal to carry as long as it's in open view and i'll probaly get 30-90 days for my brass knuckles since they are definetly illegal. The above assumes that me, being 40 years+ and having an obvious physical imfirmity kills the attacker deader than hell.

 

However, knowing the courts around here and the comparisons between someone like me and a typical punk?

 

No big deal, it's a walk. Don't bother with the bail because you probaly won't do more than 10 days MAX and will just pay a fine for the violations listed above. Gotta love living in places where common sense is applied.

[UnknownPilot 33]

It's a persistent fallacy of branding "liberals" as soft, usually spouted by the sewage balloon (rush).

 

I never listen to Rush, or ANY talk radio of any kind. I also do NOT buy or repeat a stereotype of any group of people that someone tells me. I go off of purely personal experience. I have encountered, interacted with, and known many liberals (TOO damned many, actually), and it seems the place I work at is simply crawling with them (a horrible infestation to be sure). They are all the way I described. Further, this is supplemented by observation of the politicians, judges and lawyers - who do you think set the system up to make it so that the criminals can play the victim, and succeed, in the first damn place? lol You lot are just too funny sometimes.

 

No matter how much you don't like the sound of it eraser, it's the truth. However, if you really and truly feel that shoe doesn't fit you, well, then don't try wearing it.

[Fortiesboy 3]

The law is no easy thing. Lawbreakers are bad, but that does not give you the right to take his life.

 

 

That is not a fair statement to make. We are not talking about "lawbreakers"- kids stealing bikes are lawbreakers - we are talking about perps violently attacking innocent citizens.

And when that happens, do you still say

"but that does not give you the right to take his life."?

 

I am amazed at the numbers of people who, when making judgement on these situations, seem to forget one basic, and what should be the overwhelming, fact.

Before the action started, who was doing what? Almost always the victim was going about his lawful business- walking along a street; sitting in his home. IOW, minding his own business and leaving peacably.

Then - along comes a bloke who decides to rob, burgle, rape or somehow attack this victim.

 

To me, at this very moment, (as someone most succinctly put it ) all bets are off.

A successful defence should be permitted, and it should be irrelevant what injuries occur to the perp.

This crap about you should run if you can! Or if you knock him down that's where your assault should finish. Bah!

You are entitled in law to win. And that means - to be safe. To hold your ground and be standing there with the perp in no position to be a threat or resume to be a threat.

IOW- He is on the ground unconscious. And if in becoming unconscious he happens to die, then it's his tough luck.

Why should a victim knock down a perp and then wait to see if he gets up again with his cosh or knife ?

 

Remember- who was doing what before all this started! That should be foremost in the mind of any prosecutor.

[+Piecemeal 450]

I agree totally. It's becoming the same here.

 

On a similar note; couple of years ago a farming pensioner who lived on his own was jailed for the manslaughter of a Traveller (Gypsy), whom he killed with his shotgun while that guy was in the process of burgling his house. This poor guy had to live amongst real scum in jail until the Government finally relented following pressure from a nationwide campaign by his friends, relatives and the general public.

 

What's wrong (I think) is that as a whole, society has become too soft, laws have become too lax. Take for example corporal punishment. I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me that, ok, it wasn't very pleasant for the person on the receiving end, but it did teach me and others the meaning of the saying 'if you don't want to do the time then don't do the the crime'. When I was twelve I was caught stealing batteries for my cassette walkman from a local supermarket. When I got home from the police station my Father took his belt off and gave me the hiding of my life. And ever since I was old enough to understand why he did that, I thought and still do think he was absolutely right

 

What have you got these days? For f**k sake, everywhere I look I see the kids in control of the households. I dread to think what society will be like in twenty or thirty years

[xclusiv8 35]

You all seem to think that this kind of wild wild west society would work. It wouldnt. Dont you think that there would be alot of scenarios where someone kills someone yet they did not have to. Lots of lives would be lost because of your judgement in the heat of battle. I am for that laws should be stricter but we have to remeber that people wanted a society where laws are protecting them and nomatter how you turn it around perpetrators are people as well so the same laws apply to them. Sure its all twisted but like i said its no easy thing to be a judge.

 

But seriously what right does anyone have to play god and take a life even if your life is in danger. Two wrongs does not make one right. But as someone mentioned it all depends on the situation, sometimes you just dont have the choice. ALl i am saying is that too kill should not be the first thought one gets, thats why we have the police. So that no civilian can take the law in his own hands.

 

Speaking of all this, not long ago a guy here in sweden saved a woman from beeing choked to death. She was attacked by some drunk dude. The "guy" saw this and took his crowbar that he had in the car and hit the perp so he fell to the ground. We all saw him as a big hero. Now months later he is beeing charged for assault and attempt of murder. Why? Because when the perp was out cold he continued to hit him numerus times with the crowbar and the guy almost died. Now this perticular information the "hero" did not reveal until he was in the courtroom. That court gave him 2 years for using way to much force.

[+Dave 2,318]

That is why I carry a Sig Sauer P225. Most of the time just showing it takes care of the problem.

[shotdown 8]

 

What's wrong (I think) is that as a whole, society has become too soft, laws have become too lax.

 

I don't think society has really become too soft in the matter we are discussing. I think the problem is that judges and lawmakers are not affected by this kind of problems like us lowly mortals. They don't need to think about the problems of self defence because they can go from home to their jobs without stepping on the streets, and when they actually decide to walk they have their bodyguards to deal with that. They don't need to think of anyone breaking in their homes because they live in houses with expensive security systems and guards patrolling the area, so why bothering with something that works fine for them?

[eraser_tr 29]

No matter how much you don't like the sound of it eraser, it's the truth.

 

Just keep telling yourself that. What's really going on is that you perceive yourself as tough and your ideology as embodying a similar toughness. Now you see "us liberals" as different, not one of you so therefore we must be inherently inferior, weak, stupid, etc. That or you're making the mistake a number of scumbag bullies have made, that just because a person is quiet, nice, intellectual, etc or simply not an aggressive person makes them weak.

 

You all seem to think that this kind of wild wild west society would work. It wouldnt....

 

Two wrongs does not make one right.

 

No one's quite advocating that much, only that we can act like a man, not be legally obligated to act like a blonde in a horror movie.

 

And no, two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts make a right

 

Seriously, the use of force/violence isn't necessarily a second wrong. That guy beating someone with a crowbar once they're already unconscious, is wholey unnecessary.

 

But, under the law there is one situation where you can shoot someone dead and have no questions asked: arson. Apparently because the threat to life and property is so great, lethal force is immediately justified. So instead of carrying a throwaway knife or gun, carry a lighter

[xclusiv8 35]

 

But, under the law there is one situation where you can shoot someone dead and have no questions asked: arson. Apparently because the threat to life and property is so great, lethal force is immediately justified. So instead of carrying a throwaway knife or gun, carry a lighter

 

I do even better. I dont go anywhere without my lightsaber

 

[eraser_tr 29]

Ah if only someone could get a real lightsaber working. We can contain plasma in an electromagnetic field, now if they could just shape the field like that and miniaturize the equipment and power necessary to fit into a flashlight....

 

I wonder what kind of permit you'd need to carry around a sword on your belt like in medeival times? That's the next best thing, and how funny would people look at you?

[Ruggbutt 45]

There is so much wrong with what you've posted Eraser that I don't even know where to start. Let me interject that I was a Concealed Carry Instructor for the state of Arizona for many years and I have knowledge of what is and is not legal. That being said your comment about arson is incorrect. I don't know where you get your info but I recommend going elsewhere. As for the way liberals are visualized by someone who leans the other direction, well that's just how it is. You can thank your tree hugging bretheren for the continuation of that stereotype. Most of the liberals I know are scared of a firearm just by the fact it's a firearm. It's an irrational fear IMHO. They don't fear a knife, a gallon of gasoline or an automobile and those things are just inanimate objects just like a firearm is. And all can be used with great success to kill or maim another person. You also eschew the "wild west" mentality. I think you may have taken too many Hollywood westerns as fact. First off, an armed society is a polite society. I saw this in action at least 9x a month at the shooting leagues that I attended. There were disagreements and genuine hate between some of the participants. But not one person ever pulled out his firearm in an argument or disagreement. Because everyone else was armed as well. That ol' self preservation instinct really does work. Heck, I had a husband/wife team that hated me because my shooting shirt had my nickname (Ruggbutt) on it. They prolly didn't like that fact that I had long hair down to my waist either. But they left me alone and I ignored them because it wasn't worth the hassle. Or the gunfight. And as Dave has pointed out you'll find that in public that people acting poorly often change their tune when someone slaps leather.

 

I had an ex g/f who sent two guys to beat me down one night. I was maybe 160 lbs. soaking wet and they were both big guys well over 200. Once John Moses Browning's legacy (1911A1) showed up both gentlemen decided that maybe they should find a different vocation. This happened at 2 a.m. (after the club shut down) and in the parking lot of my apartment complex. No one else was around but me and my Colt Commander and it saved me a lot of pain. I've held armed burglars at gunpoint as well, until the cops came. Said burgler was willing to shoot it out till he saw my ACOG scoped HBAR and realized he wasn't going to win. Phoenix P.D. showed up and took him away and thanked me for my help. Thank god he or his partner decided that they didn't want a piece of me, cuz at one point as his partner was reaching for a pistol under the seat the safety came off. I was taken aback by the fact that burgler number two was going to make me kill him. I would have in a heartbeat, but when I told him just to take a quick peek out of the rear window of the truck he saw that daddy was full on serious and the bad guy made the right decision. None of this would have happened had I not been strapped. In those two instances all 4 people acted politely. Granted, they did so at the end of my muzzle but can you imagine how things would have turned out differently had I just been standing there, all alone. God didn't create everyone equal, but Sam Colt made them equal.

 

What's going on in the UK is terrible and there are many of the same things going on here in the states. People going to jail for protecting their property or their lives. It sucks. Thankfully more and more states are adopting concealed carry and are amending their laws allowing citizens to protect themselves. When I was teaching I was proud that I had a large percentage of female students. Word gets out quickly when you're "chick friendly". I taught a whole bunch of women how to protect themselves and gave them the knowledge they needed to avoid a situation where they might need a firearm in the first place. I'm not sure where you live Eraser, but here in Arizona it's very easy to be righteous if you have to drop the hammer on a bad guy.