Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot ...

Maybe the regular British ought to follow the lead of us Yanks and try to get their country back!

Taking guns away is always a solution of economics. Basically when you divide the classes, anybody of moderate wealth on up get protected. The middle class generally protected by their location. The rich are highly protected by their access to security with guns, location and distance from commoners.

It is the people of poor to average income who successfully defend themselves daily in the US and should be doing the same in England. In addition, if those people understood their numbers compared to those of the rich or ruling classes, they would see that rebellion is quite possible.
 
The Brits gave up their arms to protect the Royals. The Royals in England were afraid of the British people during the Russian revolution. The English Royals saw what happened to their Russian cousins. The British people gave up their arms for the Royals safety. They gave up their guns in order to keep Prince Chas. :rolleyes:
 
So, are you all saying crime is worse in England than it is here in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The British are saying crime is worse in England than in the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.
Click to expand...

The article is from '09. Their situation hasn't improved.
 
I was in the UK last year and saw no evidence that crime is any worse there than here. Of course my sampling was small and I also think Washinton, D.C., is a nice town.

Of course, the U.K. has a castle doctrine. I've seen the castles.

You also have to consider British history all by itself, too. They killed one of their kings, you may recall and what they got instead was barely more tolerable. So when Cromwell died, they went back to a monarchy. There have been attempts on the monarch's life since then, too. Six or eight in the case of Victoria. Just about as many as there have been on the president's life in this country since then. Some consider that a Bad Thing.

Usually when a politician make crime and public order an election issue, he doesn't have anything better to talk about. The last presidential candidate to do that was Richard Nixon.
 
There have also been recent cases where homeowners (or occupants) have defended themselves against armed invaders, and the resident/victim has been sent to prison.

That's simply not right.
Click to expand...

England has rules of engagment for this sort of thing as does the US, but they differ. Break the laws for those ROEs in either place and you get busted. That is how it works.


So, Englanders broke the law. What's the problem? After all, the people of England don't seem to terribly distressed by such laws and are not diligently working to have them overturned. There is no large movement afoot to do this.
 
So, Englanders broke the law. What's the problem? After all, the people of England don't seem to terribly distressed by such laws and are not diligently working to have them overturned. There is no large movement afoot to do this.
Click to expand...

Has this apparent satisfaction with their current law/s been confirmed by any kind of large scale polling in the UK?
 
You also have to consider British history all by itself, too. They killed one of their kings.....
Click to expand...

Actually, they killed quite a lot of them, and queens, too ..... English history and monarchial succession is a very sordid subject, if you look into it, especially considering the fact that the victors prtetty much get to write history- it still looks pretty bad!

Just about as many as there have been on the president's life in this country since then. Some consider that a Bad Thing.
Click to expand...

Who considers assassination a good thing? It produces chaos and uncertainty ..... which are not good things in a civilized society, generally.




Of course my sampling was small and I also think Washinton, D.C., is a nice town.
Click to expand...

Either we have different definitions of "nice", or "town" ..... or the towns I am familiar with are much better than I thought.

[Usually when a politician make crime and public order an election issue, he doesn't have anything better to talk about. The last presidential candidate to do that was Richard Nixon. /QUOTE]

I seem to recall crime and punishment was a big deal in the 80's ..... we got the "War on Drugs" out of that mess.....
Click to expand...
 
Quote.Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
There have being a few cases recently were house owners have stabbed buglers to death. No charges were brought judged to be self defence.

There have also been recent cases where homeowners (or occupants) have defended themselves against armed invaders, and the resident/victim has been sent to prison.


That's simply not right.



What are the cases you refer to. ?
 
Quote. Arizona Smithshooter
Senior Member


Join Date: August 20, 2011
Location: Western Arizona
Posts: 153 The Tony Martin story that happened in 1999 explained in this video:

Tony Martin set up a ambush for burglars that had broke into his house before. He shot two men one dead both who were running away at the time. He used a illegally obtained shotgun. He had a shotgun that was taken of him when he shot at a car that mistakenly drove up his lane. Hardly self defence.
 
Tony Martin set up a ambush for burglars that had broke into his house before.
Click to expand...

That is because the police were not helping, refused to help, or were inefficient (probably all three). Tony's personality didn't help, but his main problem was that he had a bad plan, or executed it poorly. But his (and others) actions started a spark that has ignited a push back from the people to demand rights to protection of self and property. Common sense will win out in the end.
 
There have also been recent cases where homeowners (or occupants) have defended themselves against armed invaders, and the resident/victim has been sent to prison.
Click to expand...

I have seen countless videos of Bobbies being beaten and on occasion even being evacuated out of riot areas because of lack of numbers and lack of weapons. I also saw and will do my best to post a lady who owed a gun used for whatever sporting purpose who had people on her land and asked them to leave (the land owner was a terminal cancer patient as I remember it) and the lady land owner was arrested due to the firearm and charged..

The thing of it was she never mentioned the firearm and the firearm never left her house and was not even touched during the incident. The police were aware that she had one under whatever exculsion and used that as reasoning to arrest her... Groupthink at its grandest...

Inability to protect the public is certainly a threat to the public and of course in general the law abiding citizen who pay in property, life and limb..
 
Last edited:
Quote. noelf2
Senior Member


Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,141 Quote:
Tony Martin set up a ambush for burglars that had broke into his house before.

That is because the police were not helping, refused to help, or were inefficient (probably all three). Tony's personality didn't help, but his main problem was that he had a bad plan, or executed it poorly. But his (and others) actions started a spark that has ignited a push back from the people to demand rights to protection of self and property. Common sense will win out in the end.
__________________

The law hasn't changed after the Tony Martin incident. People in the UK have always had the right to self defence including lethal force nothing has changed.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jimbo86 (from the great state of Nebraska), yes, I think we have different ideas of what a nice town is. I was in the D.C. National Guard. My late father-in-law was born there and graduated from high school there. My wife was also born there in the same hospital. We got married across the circle. It's a nice town. Expensive in parts of it but still not a bad place.
 
http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/A...obber-home?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Just in a bit of comparison, here in Kentucky over the weekend a 92 year old WWII vet shot and killed a one of three would be robbers. From seeing some local TV interviews with the gent, he heard them in his basement, grabbed his .22 squirrel rifle and sat down in his chair to wait and see if they would come upstairs. Sure enough, 15 minutes later they kicked his first floor door open and he dropped the first guy with a shot to the chest. The other two grabbed their dead, or soon to be dead buddy and drug him out of the house, threw him in the car and drove off. They were both arrested when they called the police with a wild story how their friend was accidentally shot and killed.

I don't believe that there will be any charges filed against the 92 year old. Now, keep in mind, he knew that people broke into his basement but he opted to have a seat rather than call the police. I don't know how that part will play out but even if this goes to the grand jury, I just don't see any one charging him.
 
The way it works here the prosecution will look at if its in the public interest to prosecute. With the man being 92 years old its unlikely they would prosecute. Having said that ringing the police first and then defending your self if the police didn't arrive on time would be a better idea. It could be seen as a ambush.
 
Update below. After all the rubbish talked on the right to self defence in the UK.

Quote.
A couple who were arrested after a shotgun was fired at intruders during a break-in will not face charges, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.
The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action.



‎www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-19496531
 
Last edited:
And so they've NFA'd it.
Though some people round here seem outraged that the police even investigated it at all. Can you say "Zimmerman"?
 
So self-defense allowed them to only be arrested, hauled to jail and come up with bail money. Now maybe they can get back to their lives and deal with the trauma of invasion and shooting since the Crown feels satisfied they are not criminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top