It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Army
Yes, you have less gun crimes, but crime overall is higher per capita than the US.
Originally posted by Army
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin. The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British jibes about "America's vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate
Source
English law provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. It is provided in both common law and more specifically in the Criminal Law Act (1967). If such a defense is proved to the satisfaction of the court then the person is fully acquitted of the charges against them.
The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so—demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant.
The other key factor is reasonableness—the defendant's response must be necessary and in proportion to the nature of the attack - the force used must not be excessive in the circumstances. However, like immanency, the nature of the defense rests on the defendant's belief of whether their actions were in proportion to the circumstances they believed existed.
For greater detail see the Crown Prosecution Service's web site.
Considerable media coverage of this topic has resulted from the Tony Martin case
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used excessive in the circumstances
Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect I dont think ETHIER are a joke.
The law does make mistakes, because you've had bad experiences with the police and the courts you no doubt dont like them, yes no?
But I have had 0 problems with them therefore I like them, its all about interpretation and opinion.
What happened to your mate COULD be seen as over reaction, but IMO its a bad judgement.
Originally posted by Odium
Sorry DevilWasp but I'm in the process of becoming a barrister are legal system is a joke.
The amount of abuse and stupid laws in this country isn't even funny anymore.
The fact we make laws open to interpretation instead of strict, is a joke.
Originally posted by Odium
Sorry DevilWasp but I'm in the process of becoming a barrister are legal system is a joke.
Originally posted by devilwasp
The amount of abuse and stupid laws in this country isn't even funny anymore.
As I said, this is only your opinion mate.
Originally posted by Odium
The fact we make laws open to interpretation instead of strict, is a joke.
Originally posted by devilwasp
But how can we we make it strict if every case is diffrent and therefore requires interpretation.
Originally posted by Odium
The ones I pointed out sound good to you then?
That's fairly simple.
The Government bothers to use delegated legislation correctly, instead of the bodies we pay with our tax making laws that do not work. So then instead of every three years down the line they have to change the law because it doesn't work they bother putting the time in and drafting the law correctly.
They also need to make sure the wording is done correctly, instead of leaving in terms which can be abused to get guilty people off of the hook.
If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
I personally could care less that you don't like guns and don't want them around. I'm more concerned with people who are willing to defend themselves and their families and are deprived of the option of using a firearm to do so because of people with opinions like yours.
I've got 80 year old relatives in the UK who have gone through their entire lives without ever seeing a violent act except on TV, lucky them says I. But, I also know of an elderly family friend who had her face kicked so hard it blew up to the size of a medicine ball when she had her pension stolen from her on the walk back from the Post Office. Would you have denied her a gun with which to defend herself?
If you place your reliance for safety on the police, no matter what the size of the force, you are sadly mistaken. If you're not prepared to take responsibility for your own protection how can you reasonably expect anyone else to do it for you.
As for your fascination with .50 caliber rifles, would it make any difference to tell you that there has never been a single documented usage of such a weapon in any criminal act - ever - in the USA.
You will doubtless read all of this and consider it to be so much hokum, if you ever change your opinion it would likely be at the point of a knife, and I take cold comfort from the thought of you having such an epiphany shortly prior to your epitaph.
BTW, you ever had a 7.62 mm rifle in the face?
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Yes, every time I shoot the one I own, the butt stock that is.
BTW - which sniper rifle do you consider to be the largest in the World then?
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Yes, every time I shoot the one I own, the butt stock that is.
You put the butt "stock" in your face?
Dont you mean cheeck plate?
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 Sec 37 amends Section 19 of The Firearms Act 1968, which deals with possessing certain firearms in a public place. This section now reads as follows….
A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place
(1) a loaded shotgun
(b) an air weapon (whether loaded or not)
(c) any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, or
(d) an imitation firearm.
The above is effective from 20 th January 2004