The British have something to say to us Americans!

Originally posted by bovarcher
Some clarification is needed here about Tony Martin.

He received enormous public support over here, and was in the news for months. Most people, including me, believe it was wrong to charge him even with manslaughter.

However it's important to be clear why he was charged, and why he ended up in jail. The law here states a householder may use 'reasonable and proportional force' against an intruder into your home. This includes killing the intruder in certain circumstances: where the homeowner had reasonable grounds to assume his life was threatened, then killing the burglar is OK in law.

The rearon Tony Martin got into trouble with the law is because he pursued the 2 intruders as they left his property, and shot one of them in the back as he was running away. The intruder then crawled, fatally injured, into a ditch and died a couple of hours later. His body was only discovered the next day.

Unfortunately the law here does not support this, and the law has to be enforced in a fatal shooting situation. If the intruder had been in the house, had been armed or even if Martin could have convinced a jury he believed he was in mortal danger, then he'd have been in the clear and there would have been no prosecution. Even if Martin had killed him.

Details are important.

Now now, lets not cloud this all with sticky details.

Anyway recently a store attendant not far from me was not sent to jail in a similar situation. Guy shows up to rob store, takes money and proceeds to flee on his getaway bicycle -snicker-. Attendant steps out of store as robber flees past him (still holding his gun), attendant shots him twice and the man later dies. Honestly I had no problem with the attendant getting no jail time here.

Guns are just a symptom of a larger issue, power. Those who have it and those who don't. Until all sources of guns go away, criminals will always find a place to obtain them. If guns were all gone, they would use something else and if those were all gone, they would use something else and so on and so on.

This issue cannot be resolved totally one way or another because our very natures will not allow it.

reply to post by tensetek


The funny thing is most people believe the police are there to save you, they can only respond after the fact. look at the new bill HR45 trying to be rammed down our pie holes, they want make it so hard to register a gun or make it impossible to buy bullets, I hate liberal government with a passion.

Police were originally formed to round up run away slaves from the south, not server and protect citizens.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek

 

Well, it's rather apparent, your motives in posting that YT video. Of course, as is usual with ATS rules, there seems to be no real link to the SOURCE of that video from YouTube (unless I missed it)

No matter...it is the same argument seen, ad infinitum, even here in the USA.

Let's take, shall we, a more in-depth examination into this concept.

Firstly, there are MANY laws on the books, in many States, that allow for....well, I'll call it "Eminent Domain". In simpler terms, if your home is intruded upon, and you use deadly force in defence, then you are well within your rights. (I don't know if these laws exist in England....maybe that's why we left in 1772...Oh! No, it's because of religion and taxes....THAT led to the REVOLUTION of 1776!!!!)

Back to "Eminent Domain". Being not a lawyer, it is my understanding that in most of the fifty States a home-intruder incident that results in the DEATH of the 'intruder' absolves the homeowner who used deadly force to protect his home.

Doesn't matter HOW the intruder was killed, once he entered the premises. We all think that a gun is the ONLY way to kill an intruder, but that is obviously untrue.

Let's try a mind-experiment. Let's say that no guns existed, but only 'paint-guns'....that is ALL we have, in this mind game. The 'loser' is the one with the most 'hits', that is, the most paint ball 'hits'.

A really smart person would lure an intruder into a situation where HE, the lurer, would have the upper hand....because, we all know that the intruder(s) are stupid and dull....haven't you been to the movies lately???

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?

Well, guess what? You're inability to actually hit a target is about as close as the guy who, wishing to be a criminal, is.

Here's a thing to keep in your brain....and STOP looking at Hollywood movies for the answers....in REAL LIFE a Peace Officer will only unholster their weapon when absolutely necessary. It seems that HollyWood has tainted the concept.....and that is a shame, because it leads to such misconception.

I've fired several guns, at the range, and I have a concealed-carry permit. And, this video was excellent. Good find.

reply to post by bovarcher



Our laws in the US would not support that either. I've had lots of cop friends throughout my life and a couple of sayings they always pointed too.

The only good witness is a dead witness. As in, the criminal testifies lies and puts things back on you.

The other one, is if you shoot an intruder, shoot to kill, and if they fall out of the doorway, drag them back into the house.
I don't know about that last one anymore. The technical end of investagations is much to complicated to pull this one off.

As far as your explaination of the Tony M. story. If they made it that far away, it's time just to call the cops and not fire at them. At the most, maybe a few shots into the ground nearby to give them the message of not coming back.

Originally posted by RussianScientists
The British people are suffering a terrible tyrrany nowadays without having guns

We are? Really? Howso?

Lets see. I can come and go as I please. I can pretty much say what I please within the bounds of taste and decency. I'm free to do what I want pretty much when I want, within the bounds of acceptable social etiquette.

I have access to free health care, a right to social housing and state financial support should I fall under hard times.

My borders are protected by a non-conscripted army of professional service men and women to whom I look for my national defence.

The law is enforced by police who offer varying levels of enforcement, up to and including the use of firearms.

The legal system is based on precendents, not on a dictatorship, and every single aspect of it is under constant review. I have a right to trial in a court of law comprising 3 independent magistrates for minor offences, or a jury and appointed circuit court judge for major ones.

No ones coming to be kicking my door down to arrest me or my family for political reasons in the middle of the night.

If I want a gun, I can buy one, be registered for it and keep it on my premises in a safe and secure locker.

Oh......the tyranny.....

reply to post by SLAYER69


Oh my GOD! And people actually voted for this idiot?
I take it back, I no longer consider Obama to even be close to being the anti christ anymore. I didn't think he was at first, but I was leaning towards "Maybe they understand something I don't. But now? I'm sorry after seeing him speak without a teleprompter, he makes Bush sound like shakespeare. The guy is a moron!

You liberal, tree hugging, ganja smoking hippies have fun trying to split hairs and trying to find the difference between "contstrain" and "infringe"

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by badgerprints

 

AND, I would get what I deserved, although I'd expect that a trained Peace Officer would know how to shoot to maim first, unless his life was in immediate danger.

Oh my you are not thinking things through. Police officers are trained to shoot to kill and the reason they do not un-holster there weapon unless necessary is that they SHOOT TO KILL, and that is what they should do. A wounded gunman is a very dangerous gunman on pure survival instinct.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lernmore

 

In fact....I hate to raise this spectre, but imagine the old West...NOT the Hollywood version, but the reality of the untamed and largely unlawful reality of the expansion of the Colonials, across the Mississippi into the the 'Promised Land'(s) of the West.

I am glad you brought this up. In the old west (real version not the Hollywood hype) they had less crime because your likelihood of being shot by robbing/raping an armed citizen was pretty high.

Do you see yet? THIS is the reality....it is the REASON for the prevalent gun 'culture' in the USA. Not saying it's good, nor is it bad, it just IS!

No that is not true. We have a prevalent gun culture because our right to bare arms so our government is unable to become tyrants.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I love this post, and IMHO I think the first few reponses to the OP should READ and THINK about the above quotation.

I will also remind you, there have actually been less deaths in the UK through the mis-use of firearms than in the US.

Think - Free your mind.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek

 

Doesn't matter HOW the intruder was killed, once he entered the premises. We all think that a gun is the ONLY way to kill an intruder, but that is obviously untrue.

Let's try a mind-experiment. Let's say that no guns existed, but only 'paint-guns'....that is ALL we have, in this mind game. The 'loser' is the one with the most 'hits', that is, the most paint ball 'hits'.

A really smart person would lure an intruder into a situation where HE, the lurer, would have the upper hand....because, we all know that the intruder(s) are stupid and dull....haven't you been to the movies lately???

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?

Well, guess what? You're inability to actually hit a target is about as close as the guy who, wishing to be a criminal, is.

Here's a thing to keep in your brain....and STOP looking at Hollywood movies for the answers....in REAL LIFE a Peace Officer will only unholster their weapon when absolutely necessary. It seems that HollyWood has tainted the concept.....and that is a shame, because it leads to such misconception.

I love this post, and IMHO I think the first few reponses to the OP should READ and THINK about the above quotation.

I will also remind you, there have actually been less deaths in the UK through the "mis-use" of firearms than in the US.

Think - Free your mind.

Quick question before continuing. I'm confused by some of the posts on this thread. Which is true: No guns are permitted by citizens or they are permitted through strict registry?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek

 

Here's a thing to keep in your brain....and STOP looking at Hollywood movies for the answers....in REAL LIFE a Peace Officer will only unholster their weapon when absolutely necessary. It seems that HollyWood has tainted the concept.....and that is a shame, because it leads to such misconception.

You must be referring to that kid who got shot in the back by the professional peace officer in California. Or maybe you are referring to the groom in New York who was shot 19 times by professional peace officers.

An armed citizenry is the best deterrent against crime. All the police will ever do is clean up the aftermath and take a report. Protect yourselves, the police cannot and will not.

You can go back to your television now and finish watching "Dirty Harry".

[edit on 1-26-2009 by groingrinder]

I'd have to agree, you Americans should fight for the right to keep your guns. Here in the UK it's getting ridiculous. The police can now pick us up off the streets just to check who we are and that we haven't been up to anything illegal. Our government spy on us from every street corner while the police, who should be there to protect us, spend most of the time finding new ways to harass, arrest or fine us.
If you are unlucky enough to be the victim of crime you are expected to curl up in a ball and simply take a beating as if you dare to fight back you end up in a cell while the attacker sues you! And whats more, the state will pay for his legal bills. . ! Any demonstration ends up with the police wading in in riot gear and beating those daring to stand up to an injustice, and hardly a day goes by without a new law being passed which removes are rights to free speech and civil liberty. One wonders whether the government would be so keen to release the might of the riot squad if it thought one or two of the demonstrators were armed?

America, keep your arms well hidden for I believe before very long Obama's goons will come a knockin wanting you to hand them over. You are only truly free while you have the ability to protect yourself, your family and your property. Once that is taken away, like here in blighty, you become dependent on the law, and here- the law simply doesn't work.

Oh Jesus loving Christ...

As a UK citizen, I can assure you that we're doing fine without guns. Home break-ins are incredibly rare, the murder rate is low, as are rapes and other major violent crimes. Our assault rate is slightly higher than in the US, I believe, but you can put that down to our drinking habits as much as anything else - and if we had a populace as heavily-armed as in the US that would simply mean that guns would get involved more often.

We're not "defenceless" by any means, we have one of the best militaries in the world and they're full of decent people like ourselves who aren't going to turn on the general populace, it's exactly the same in the US. I'm entirely not scared of the government, unlike many in the States who seem to be worried that, were it not for their weapons, the government would take everything they owned. That's not a particularly rational belief, and if it ever did come to that then a population armed with small-arms isn't going to be able to do much against a mechanised army with the largest air force in the world, now, is it?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Number 4... a Peace Officer, I must repeat, had received EXTENSIVE training. OF COURSE, in the event of a home incursion, that Peace Officer will respond with deadly force, or force as appropriate. BUT that is a result of years of training! How many casual gun owners can claim the same, hmmmm???

When I first got my handgun, I went through an NRA handgun safety class, because I had never fired one, and wanted to be safe.

How much training do you think you need? It is not a particle accelerator, it is a pretty simple piece of equipment. My very first shot was a bullseye, (thanks Duck Hunt) and all my other shots were within about 6 inches of the bullseye. I have since improved.

If you need years of intensive training to use a gun safely and become a decent shot, you are probably not someone who should be using a gun at all. It just isnt that hard.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

hardly a day goes by without a new law being passed which removes are rights to free speech and civil liberty.

Can you give some examples, as I am here in the UK and I can protest anywhere (within reason) right now.

I have letters published in local paper.
I can speak out at community council meetings and help shape my community.
I can post my viewpoint on the internet.
I attended and was part of the Gaza protests in London on January 3rd.

In the UK - I am free to do what I like.

So what civil liberties have I lost?

P.S. There have been no deaths through the mis-use of firearms in my area. The problem throughout the UK just now is with knife-crime. But that is probably for another thread.

reply to post by jBrereton


As a UK citizen, I can assure you that we're doing fine without guns. Home break-ins are incredibly rare,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the governments mismanaging of our economy has put thousands out of work and as result violent crime andhouse break-ins have soared. Put on your thinking head for a moment and consider this; What better way could the government crack down us than creating a situation (the economic crisis) that turns people to crime just so they can survive? That's whats happening here!
And as for the army protecting us. . . For now maybe but as any soldier will tell you they are there to take orders and if those orders meant they turned on us ordinary citizens I don't think they would hesitate for a moment.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the governments mismanaging of our economy has put thousands out of work and as result violent crime andhouse break-ins have soared.

Uhu... "depression causes crime hike for a bit shocker". Was the case in the mid-1990s as well.

Put on your thinking head for a moment and consider this; What better way could the government crack down us than creating a situation (the economic crisis) that turns people to crime just so they can survive? That's whats happening here!

Supposed attack by an external force aided by those within the country, but as we saw from the whole July 7th thing, most British people are smart enough not to go along with the government telling them they ought to be scared.

And as for the army protecting us. . . For now maybe but as any soldier will tell you they are there to take orders and if those orders meant they turned on us ordinary citizens I don't think they would hesitate for a moment.

Aye well I can tell you now that outside of the very stupidest of soldiers, most will question being told to shoot British citizens, especially if those orders came from a government tyrannical enough to order them to do so. At which point the monarchy would probably dissolve parliament anyway for their crimes.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by jBrereton

 

As a UK citizen, I can assure you that we're doing fine without guns. Home break-ins are incredibly rare,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the governments mismanaging of our economy has put thousands out of work and as result violent crime andhouse break-ins have soared. Put on your thinking head for a moment and consider this; What better way could the government crack down us than creating a situation (the economic crisis) that turns people to crime just so they can survive? That's whats happening here!

Sure, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is responsible for the entire global meltdown.

Thinking heads eh?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by badgerprints

 

badger, you've just proved my point!!

Number 1....I WOULD NEVER break into somebody's house. Of course, IF (in a concocted scenario) I DID break into a Policeman's house, well OF COURSE he'd defend his FAMILY and property!!!! AND, I would get what I deserved, although I'd expect that a trained Peace Officer would know how to shoot to maim first, unless his life was in immediate danger.

100% wrong. At least here in the states. There is no such thing as "shoot to maim". Your taught from PA on that if you fire your sidearm, you shoot to kill.

Unless of course it's a strange scenario..., like a hostage or just some guy who won't come out his house. But I've seen many clips where police outnumber a gunman, and as soon as the gunman moves towards them..doesn't even raise his pistol..he's dead in a hail of gunfire.

Shoot to maim...,thats how you get yourself killed.

You either don't live in the states or watch too many movies.

I also like your point about criminals being smart enough NOT to break into a cops house. LOL, 90% of criminals are amonst the dumbest people there are. Meth'd out junkies looking for jewelery at 3 a.m. do not case houses.

To the TS, may I ask why America is being blamed for British laws?

reply to post by jBrereton


Aye well I can tell you now that outside of the very stupidest of soldiers, most will question being told to shoot British citizens, especially if those orders came from a government tyrannical enough to order them to do so. At which point the monarchy would probably dissolve parliament anyway for their crimes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobodies talking about them shooting British citizens but if they were told to back up the police and arrest and detain those of who refused to comply then they would, I believe, do so without question. And as for the monarchy dissolving government if it ever got out of hand? Do you honestly believe that the crown who receives all of it's finances from us the tax payers, via the government would ever dare to stand up and be counted? For them it would be financial suicide. The government holds all the cards. . .