It’s A Start. Sort Of.

The American gun control movement has looked at the UK, among others, as a living demonstration of the benefits of a soft-on-criminals approach to crime, including a near-total civilian gun ban.

And, as UK violent crime rates zoomed even with and beyond US rates, it might help explain why US gun control efforts have abated for the moment.

But I digress.

One of the worst aspects of British law in recent years is a disposition to punish homeowners for injuring burgars and robbers; in a few high-profile cases, citizens have been prosecuted and jailed for attacking burglars and robbers.

In the act.

On their own property.

That might be changing.  Sort of.

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 used 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.

It’s not an academic problem:

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.

There seems to be at least some recognition that self-defense is both a human instinct and not necessarily something that happens with a lot of legalistic intellectual parsing:

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that people would be protected legally if they defend themselves “instinctively”; they fear for their own safety or that of others; and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate.

It’s a start.

If only the Minnesota legislature could do so well.

22 thoughts on “It’s A Start. Sort Of.

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

    [snooty]But of course. He should have offered him tea first. After all, the british are known for our hospitality.[end snooty]

  2. Numbers. American murder rates vs. UK. Until you can explain why murder rates are so much lower in the UK than the U.S., you got nothing but anecdotes.

  3. Numbers. Until you can explain why the Aggravated Assault, Armed Robbery, Aggravated (“hot”) Burglary and Rape rates have risen from much lower to about the same as or in some cases vastly higher than in the US, then you got nothing but obsolete talking points.

  4. Guns turn robberies into murders. And that’s a good thing, eh gun kooks?

  5. If I shoot and kill someone trying to rob me, it is not murder.

    And if they are trying to rob me, they are already threatening to do me harm if I don’t cough up the dough. Should I not take them at their “word”? What makes their desire for my property greater than my desire for my property?

    And if someone who has so little regard for me that they are willing to harm me to obtain my goods, why should I give a rip if they end up at room temperature? So yeah, that is a good thing.

  6. That’s right, Loren. It’s not murder. And the FBI doesn’t count it that way. I’m saying the victims get killed instead of just robbed.

    You’re not too good with the thinkin’, are you?

  7. The FBI does count it as a homocide. And the number of homocides are the number gun banners use.

    How many people were murdered in gun free countries like Adolf’s Germany, the Soviet Union, and Red China?

  8. Guns turn robberies into murders.

    Guns also turn robberies into foiled robberies.

  9. Ever heard of Michael Bellesiles?
    These would be gun-banners are immune to the powers of reason. No matter what kind of fraud you commit and what lies you tell, if it supports their ideology the gun-banners will treat every word you say as though it were made of gold.

  10. angryclown said:

    “Guns turn robberies into murders.”

    Then sharp objects “turn robberies into murders”, and blunt objects “turn robberies into murders”, and heck, even a significant difference in muscle mass will “turn robberies into murders”.

    Not buying it, angryclown. A real gadfly would work harder. 😉

  11. Offering the burglar tea would be ok, JRoosh, but should the Englishman have offered to cook for the miscreant that would have been cruel and unusual punishment.

  12. Heller has applied for his registration. DC is looking for a way to keep its serfs oppressed.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071700621.html?sid=ST2008071700700&pos=list

    “To begin the registration process, the applicant must bring his or her revolver, unloaded and in a container, to the firearms registration office at police headquarters, 300 Indiana Ave. NW. The applicant must also bring two passport-sized photos, proof of D.C. residency, and a valid D.C. driver’s license or a letter from a physician attesting that the applicant’s vision is at least as good as that required for the license.
    An applicant must fill out registration forms, submit fingerprints and pass a written firearm-proficiency test, while police ballistics experts test-fire the revolver. The revolver will then be returned to the owner, but he or she cannot legally use the weapon, even for self-defense, until notified that the registration has been approved. “

  13. My dear friend AC taunted: “Until you can explain why murder rates are so much lower in the UK than the U.S., you got nothing but anecdotes.”

    You astonish me, sir.

    Any sensible Clown knows that the Brits couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn, if there were any barns left in Britian.

    And 007? Please do not mention that fop. Everyone knows that each of his 007 kills were actually the work of Agent Flint, acting from cover.

    Was Rambo from Liverpool? No Sir! Was Annie Oakely a native of Oxford? Again I declare not.

    No indeed…when you need killin’ done, you come to America dear Clown.

  14. I’m so grateful to you for setting me straight, Swiftee, old bean! Our British cousins’ performance in the Revolution and War of 1812 would tend to support your view, eh wot?

  15. I’m saying the victims get killed instead of just robbed.

    You’re not too good with the thinkin’, are you?

    Actually AC I am of the belief that my thinking is much better than yours.

    1. Laws prohibiting the use of guns are obeyed by whom? A – the law abiding.

    2. Are people who commit robbery law abiding? A – No.

    3. Is there any demonstratable evidence that the non-law abiding element will obey gun prohibitions, while ignoring other laws? A – Not that I have ever seen.

    So the only people you can realistically be talking about keeping guns from are those who are not the criminal element, which seems counter productive. Your thinking is pretty poor if you believe otherwise.

  16. Is there any demonstratable evidence that the non-law abiding element will obey gun prohibitions, while ignoring other laws?

    Certainly not in the UK. They’re undergoing a bit of a spot of gun crime, old boy.

    Drat it all, they’ve gone and told the “gun ban” to sod off!

  17. If the article is correct, Brits have it better than Minnesotans. Their law seems to say that if you believed your life was in danger, you could shoot. It’s a SUBJECTIVE standard – what did you believe at the time?

    Here, you can shoot somebody only if you “reasonably” believe your life is in danger. But “reasonable” is determined by the jury sitting quietly in a well-guarded courthouse years after the fact. It’s an OBJECTIVE standard – would an ordinary reasonable person have believed that your life was in danger? If not –if they decide you were overcautious, or paranoid, or just plain scared silly — then you weren’t reasonable so you should not have shot. Having done so, you’re now a murderer.

    We should have it as good as the Brits.
    .

  18. Loren said: “Actually AC I am of the belief that my thinking is much better than yours.”

    Of course you are, Loren. It’s simply another symptom of your defective thinking.

  19. Or your thinking is demonstrative of your defect, clown.

    Go squirt more seltzer down your pants.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.