Sorry, Britons, ya gotta just sit there and like it.

[John Connolly]

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1377062004

Advice to do nothing when your home is invaded/burgled. The law ain't on yer side...

[Cady Goldfield]

Boy, that really does effectively castrate the law abiding populace.

I remember when we used to get lectures from the police on how to passively accept rape and not to fight back or do anything to "get the rapist mad." :rolleyes:

[Soulend]

I thought the whole 'man's home is his castle' thing came from English law. What sad irony. Speaking of castration, how long before one will be required to register his bollocks and keep them in his mum's purse, I wonder?

[Cady Goldfield]

Apparently, an emasculated populace is easier to rule than an armed one with a survival instinct.

[Shitoryu Dude]

True enough - good thing I can freely kill intruders in my home with no thought of legal retribution from the state.

Keeps the neighborhood quite safe.

:beer:

[fifthchamber]

Hi all..
The truly weird thing in the UK is that nearly all the people that I knew there, including a few friends I had in the police force agreed entirely that the approach you should take when your house is broken into is to fight back if you can...Naturally, the force you use should not be over the top...But THATS the issue..When do you stop...And how much is enough..THATS the crux that the law in the UK is split over...Many see the actual shooting as being justified..I don't...I think he should have just beaten them...But THATS not MY call to make in HIS situation...He was scared (Tony Martin..), had been victimised before and was threatened...It's not shooting time but the message he wanted put out is certainly put out there...
What the law says is that we "should NOT"...Where the line is no-one knows..Until you reach it..And then it can only be decided by a jury of your peers (Or not..)...No easy way out.. The Martin case was an exception in a country that does not have Gun laws...But the points arent as simple as it may look...
Basically...The British would fight...The law may legally say that its wrong...But the majority I feel would fight...Or it may just be my mates...
Probably...
Bugger of an issue though eh?...I came to Japan...Where the only place I feel worried is in Roppongi...And thats only because of all of us being there...Like being home again...
Regards.

[Earl Hartman]

Any country that has a law that says you may not defend yourself and your proprety against an intruder in your own home is on the road to perdition if it is not there already.

[Maro]

HHHmn? quite ironic considering you guys bleat on if anyone criticises the "Best country in the world"

Hello Kettle?

:D

[Soulend]

Hell, a lot of Brits on here criticize the U.K.'s self-defense/weapons laws. I don't see anyone criticizing England, only the fact that their right to defend themselves is apparently diminishing.

Stupid laws are stupid regardless of the nation in which they happen to rear their ugly heads.

[dirtyvicar]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Boy, that really does effectively castrate the law abiding populace.

I remember when we used to get lectures from the police on how to passively accept rape and not to fight back or do anything to "get the rapist mad." :rolleyes:

Here's something that'll get a rapist mad...
:eek:
Killer Tampon (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=ct20001222184005162_210700)

How do you remove it without losing a finger?

[The Nephilim]

Why does this always have to come back? The brits are not allowed to use "force" when having their home broken into. Do you yanks ever give up rubbing it in?

We can defend ourselves against a break in, as long as we do not cause "suffering" on people, but then when I mean "suffering" you can have fun playing Uke goes through the window. We can use force, but enough to scare the brown stuff out of them.

As for the Tony Martin case... do a search and take a look at a thread that was done. A few of the names that have posted on here were also the same in that thread too.

[monkeyboy_ssj]

Originally posted by Soulend
Hell, a lot of Brits on here criticize the U.K.'s self-defense/weapons laws. I don't see anyone criticizing England, only the fact that their right to defend themselves is apparently diminishing.

Stupid laws are stupid regardless of the nation in which they happen to rear their ugly heads.

Yup, me being one of them.

Criminals in this country get an easier time than the victims and it makes me sick.

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by monkeyboy_ssj
Yup, me being one of them.

Criminals in this country get an easier time than the victims and it makes me sick.

Why do you think it is called the Criminal Justice System and not hte Victims Justice System. Our laws are geared to the criminal being in court and getting an easy time while the victim is the one getting the 3rd degree as to why.

[MikeWilliams]

Uh, did any of you actually read the Scotsman article?

The article was about advice issued to homeowners about what to do in case of a burglary. This advice was issued to minimise the physical risk to homeowners. Since burglars could well be frightened/on drugs/armed, the advice seemed sound to me. As martial artists we may feel qualified to deal with intruders, but I'm quite sure that most ordinary people are not.

How many times have you read (on this board and elsewhere) that the best self-defense option to a street-robbery is to give your attacker your wallet? Well, the advice in this article is along the same lines.

The law in Britain is really quite simple: you are allowed to use proportionate force to defend yourself (or others) if you feel you are in danger. What constitutes proportional force in relation to the perceived danger is for the courts to decide.

The Lord Chief Justice has gone on record in the past week saying very few cases of homeowners defending themselves against intruders would ever come to court. This view has been backed by both Tony Blair and the Michael Howard (leader of the opposition).

In both the recent high profile cases of Tony Martin and Barry-Lee Hastings, they were deemed to have used disproportionate force. Tony Martin armed himself in readiness, and ended up shooting the fleeing intruder in the back; Barry-Lee Hastings stabbed an intruder twelve times as the intruder lay on the floor.

I do believe that you should be able to take all appropriate measures to protect your life and property. I also tend to believe that, were we allowed access to firearms, there would be less need to give advice such as in the Scotsman article. But I must point out that the porpulation of Britain is nowhere near as emasculated as Americans tend to think.

Basically, you do have the right to defend yourself, but the consequences of exercising that right may have to be scrutinised by the courts to ensure your response was appropriate to the circumstances. Does that sound so unreasonable?

[The Nephilim]

Personally I think the Americans can not understand why we do not have a firearm to defend ourselves. Well it is better to hit someone with a fist than end up paying for the cleaning crew to come round and get the blood off the carpet.

But as the UK is more compact than America, houses are more closer together and the chances are of hitting someone else is more of a danger than hitting the person. Mind you the concept seem alien to them as to not use a firearm instead of your fists or MA skills that we all seem to be learning.

But to me it seems silly that a country that allows you to carry a firearm is a form of home defence, while on the other side we are learning MA to protect ourselves.

[Soulend]

Yeah, a lot like military outfits learning close combat skills when they have rifles, tanks and artillery divisions. It's just silly I tell ya!

[Shitoryu Dude]

An American would consider getting the floor or carpet cleaned a much preferable option to being assaulted/raped/killed by a criminal.

We all look at your "concern" over what might happen to someone who has no concern at all about what may happen to you, and wonder if you have lost your marbles.

:beer:

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by Soulend
Yeah, a lot like military outfits learning close combat skills when they have rifles, tanks and artillery divisions. It's just silly I tell ya!

Wel lwhat is the point in learning to defend yourself when all you have to do is point a gun and shoot someone? Seems pointless to me that your learning a fighting self defense form and yet are willing to shoot someone without knowing if you are able to use it in a "Real" environment. You may as well do Gun Ryu and kick all the other MA skills into touch.

[monkeyboy_ssj]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Wel lwhat is the point in learning to defend yourself when all you have to do is point a gun and shoot someone? Seems pointless to me that your learning a fighting self defense form and yet are willing to shoot someone without knowing if you are able to use it in a "Real" environment. You may as well do Gun Ryu and kick all the other MA skills into touch.

Will, just a quick note, but I think you are forgetting not everyone owns a gun, in fact out of all of the people I've met in the US not one owned a gun...it would be interesting to see how many people actually do own one.

Plus I don't think many people that do carry them about on themselves all the time.

Cheers

[Soulend]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Wel lwhat is the point in learning to defend yourself when all you have to do is point a gun and shoot someone? Seems pointless to me that your learning a fighting self defense form and yet are willing to shoot someone without knowing if you are able to use it in a "Real" environment. You may as well do Gun Ryu and kick all the other MA skills into touch.

Because it's not always possible to have a gun with you? Because the assailant is too close and you need some distance for a draw? Because the opponent does not present a threat of "grievous bodily harm or death" - and you are thus not legally justified to use deadly force? Because guns jam? Because you're currently getting your head thumped from out of nowhere and drawing a piece wouldn't really be feasible? Because you don't really want to shoot your old drunk Uncle Jack at a party just because he's getting out of hand? Dunno, pick one. Pretty sure there's a reason in there somewhere. Even the samurai practiced unarmed skills and they got to carry those big honking swords around and stuff.

Gun Ryu is pretty cool though. A 125grn. SJHP to the skull whoops a reverse punch like it's cool. :D

On the other side of the coin, why are so many "martial" artists (ostensibly a class of folk concerned about personal safety) aghast at a tool that can save their lives, and the lives of their family?

[Shitoryu Dude]

Where in the US were you? If you stayed in primarily urban areas then you were associating with "urban hicks" - gun ownership is a fearful thing for them as guns are known to jump up, load themselves, fly around and shoot at people on their own volition - just like in a horror movie ;) Urban hicks are also convinced that guns actually make people act differently and cause violence just by existing in proximity to minorities and people without an MBA.

Next time you are in the US you might want to travel a bit more extensively. Across most of the US gun ownership is quite common, and for the most part unremarked upon. It's sort of like owning a sofa - everyone has one, but unless you just bought the thing it doesn't really qualify as news.

Here is a bit of culture shock for you - travel to western Montana. Just like they did when I was a kid, most trucks still have a gunrack in the rear window. It is still a common sight to see a rifle or two in many trucks year round. They are typically loaded.

:beer:

[monkeyboy_ssj]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Where in the US were you? If you stayed in primarily urban areas then you were associating with "urban hicks" - gun ownership is a fearful thing for them as guns are known to jump up, load themselves, fly around and shoot at people on their own volition - just like in a horror movie ;) Urban hicks are also convinced that guns actually make people act differently and cause violence just by existing in proximity to minorities and people without an MBA.

Next time you are in the US you might want to travel a bit more extensively. Across most of the US gun ownership is quite common, and for the most part unremarked upon. It's sort of like owning a sofa - everyone has one, but unless you just bought the thing it doesn't really qualify as news.

Here is a bit of culture shock for you - travel to western Montana. Just like they did when I was a kid, most trucks still have a gunrack in the rear window. It is still a common sight to see a rifle or two in many trucks year round. They are typically loaded.

:beer:

Then again most of the people I know in the US are hippies and anime geeks that can't lift a gun let alone fire one, I'm just glad to say that I have fired a lot of guns since whenever I'm in Las Vegas I go to the gun range, give them my passport, rent a gun and do some shooting.

Last time I was there they let me shoot 1 magazine of 9mm I think through a car 15, now that was fun! I almost fell over backwards i might add but still fun!

Most of the time just stick with a Glock 17 though.

Cheers

[Soulend]

Yep, a lot of folk around here have guns, it's just not considered that big a deal. Unless a friend buys something like a .50 Barrett or a custom .454 Casull he's unlikely to even mention his guns, any more than he would point out the fact that he owns a chainsaw or a cordless drill.

[Iain]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude

Here is a bit of culture shock for you - travel to western Montana. Just like they did when I was a kid, most trucks still have a gunrack in the rear window... They are typically loaded.

:beer:

The guns or the people in the trucks? ;)

I for one wouldn't go out of my way to pick a fight with someone who was robbing my house, gun or no gun. If he becomes a threat to my safety or that of others in the house, then that's a different matter. I just don't think it's worth killing someone because they want my TV or computer or whatever.

Oh, and let's not turn this in to a gun thread. We all know where everyone stands on the issue, so let's just drop it.

[monkeyboy_ssj]

Originally posted by Iain

Oh, and let's not turn this in to a gun thread. We all know where everyone stands on the issue, so let's just drop it.

2nded.

I don't want George to have to make a sex, religion, politics and gun ownership forum :rolleyes:

[Shitoryu Dude]

"Pick a fight" :confused:

How is shooting someone in the act of burglary considered picking a fight?

:beer:

[MikeWilliams]

If you are not under direct physical threat, is shooting a burglar proportionate to the crime being comitted?

If so, trespass and theft are effectively capital crimes. How come they do not carry the death penalty?

[dirtyvicar]

If someone illegally enters my home, especially at night when I am most likely there, they've already stepped pretty far outside the bounds of acceptable and legal behavior. Why should I assume that they will be satisfied with the tv or computer? Once my home has been identified as an easy target, it will most likely be revisited. And the perp may bring some friends along next time. Maybe they are not as kind and caring as the initial thief, and would like to see if there are any other needs they can satisfy whilst visiting?

I would not feel safe letting someone walk out with an armload of my stuff (or even empty handed). It is just stuff - this time. But once you've been violated like that, there's nothing to stop them from coming back for more. Nothing emboldens someone like success.

Is shooting them appropriate? Depends on the individual circumstance. They're at least gonna get the fight of their life if I catch them in my house... I hope it never happens, but try to be prepared.

[Soulend]

If you are not under direct physical threat, is shooting a burglar proportionate to the crime being comitted?


Good question. The way I understand the law (and I'm no lawyer!), you have no onus to avoid confrontation or run while within your own home, however you still cannot legally use deadly force unless you reasonably feel that your life or the lives of others are in danger, or you are in danger of grave injury.

Hypothetically speaking, if you confronted a burglar in the act and he simply continued unplugging your DVD player and loading into the back of his truck, you cannot legally shoot him as he represents no threat to your life. Neither the loss of your Sanyo nor his simple presence in the house is justification for the use of deadly force. At least that is the law as I understand it here, and it seems to be similar in some other states. Of course, a scenario where the burglar is going to simply ignore a gun pointed at him is pretty unlikely.

He is either held for police, runs away, or attempts to attack and is promptly shot. I'd prefer one of the first two. Personally, I am only really interested in the section of the house that has my family in it. Not to say I won't challenge an intruder, but the rest of my crap can be replaced.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Much of it depends on the state you live in - in quite a few of them you are basically allowed to kill anyone you find in your home if they are in the commission of a crime.

The reasoning is that you have the right to defend yourself from a threat or a perceived threat. Someone in your home is basically assumed to be armed and dangerous - it is not up to you to prove that they are not.

That said, the vast majority of people are not going to just start shooting and will give a common thief opportunity to surrender or run away.

:beer:

[Shitoryu Dude]

The sign I put up is an NRA sticker in my screen door window :D

2nd amendment confirms the right to bear arms

self-defense laws give you the right to kill in order to protect yourself

The argument, for Americans, is pretty much closed.

:beer:

[elder999]

Your smart, professional burglars case their jobs carefully and hit empty homes. The ones who hit when you are there have to be considered dangerous. Either they know you and your loved ones are at home and are prepared to deal with you forcibly, or they are so incredibly stupid or spaced out that they are dangerous to themselves and others.

You cannot, of course, use deadly force merely because the intruder is in your house. But, if he attacks you after forcing his way into your home, he is bought and paid for. The best thing, of course, is to keep him from getting in at all.

I’ve repelled burglary twice in my life; both times, the sound of my racking the slide on my pump action shotgunm and saying “GET OUT OF MY HOUSE,” was enough for the burglar to run for it. If he didn’t, well, yes, I’d have shot him.
You’d have to be truly crazy and dangerous to not run at the sound of that…..

The locksmith will tell you it’s all about locks. The alarm salesman will tell you it’s all about alarms. The guy at the puppy mill may tell you that all you need is a watchdog, and the clerk at the gunshop may tell you that the gun is the be-all and end-all.
Don’t fall for it. I hate to sound like a yuppie here, but you need a holistic approach. You need it all. We live waaaay out in the woods, though, so the alarm isn't going to do much besides wake me up-average response time for the sheriff is about 45 minutes. We've got really good locks and motion-sensor activated lighting, though that often gets set off by animals, so it gets left off until I install a shunt from the alarm system.

Dogs are great. They sense things you can’t sense, they smell things you can’t smell, and they intimidate people you may not be able to intimidate. A burglar climbing in a window was taken at gunpoint by a woman. He snarled at her, “You ain’t got the balls to shoot me.”
Wrong sentiment. She blew him away. You know if she’d had a slavering Rottweiler at her side, I really don’t think that dude would have looked at the dog and said, “You ain’t got the balls to bite me.”

You Brits are (imho) royally screwed,……

[Maro]

SO Harvey, do you sit in front of the TV at night with you gun in your hand?

A few years ago I was sat up late watching Rugby. It was about 3.00am. Out Flat was on the ground level and our front door opens onto a shared hallway for the 4 flats upstairs.

A Drunk guy from the party upstairs crashes through my front door (a combination of his momentum, efuddlement and cheap Yale lock on the door).

Would you shoot him?

Me, I just told him to GTF out and shut the door.

:D

[Matt Molloy]

Hmmm. Yes.

Dearie me. To be sure, if a burglar comes in then we just stand by whilst he helps himself and even help him out with the heavier stuff then we'd do what all British people do in a crisis.

Make a cup of tea.

Aye right. :laugh:

I think you'll find that British law doesn't differ that much from American law in this type of thing, regardless of the article, we just don't do the gun thing.

Appropriate force applied properly.

A serious question for the Americans on the board.

Unless you sleep with the gun under the pillow (and no way in hell would I ever want to do this, call me strange if you like but no!), can you be absolutely sure that a good burglar wouldn't get to your gun before you and if he/she does, what then?

Cheers,

Matt.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Matt Molloy
board.

Unless you sleep with the gun under the pillow (and no way in hell would I ever want to do this, call me strange if you like but no!), can you be absolutely sure that a good burglar wouldn't get to your gun before you and if he/she does, what then?

Cheers,

Matt.

Don't sleep with a gun under the pillow, but there are sometimes three loaded weapons (usually just one) readily deployed in my home, and I've defied people in the past to find them.

Think waste paper basket, for starters.....

[The Nephilim]

Well as most Americans have this steadfst belief that it is their god given right to bear arms, then maybe they should look at the 2nd ammendent again and in full. Fot it states that they have the right to bear arms, as long as they are part of a militia. So unless Aaron and Harvey are part of a military or paramilitary group, then they are in effect going against the constitution of America.

Then there is the law stating that all Americans need to be armed. This was passed in 1805 as America feared an invasion from the UK again and passed the law saying that all should be armed. For all of 1805 to 1806 only 10% of the entire population armed themselves. Then in 1806, the law was repealled as the invasion never took place.

But as the Americans only see part of the constitution of the 2nd ammendment (the right to bear arms) and not the full sentance, then they arm themselves outside the constitution as they can not be bothered to read the full text.

So they only see what they wish to see and everything else is not valid.

Oh and us Brits, we do use force. We just don't shoot first and ask questions later. As a country, we have grown out of the need to be excessive in the use of firearms, even though I do have access to a rifle, and the police know I have it. But htey do not mind me having it as long as it is not used in a manner to cause injury.

[elder999]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Well as most Americans have this steadfst belief that it is their god given right to bear arms, then maybe they should look at the 2nd ammendent again and in full. Fot it states that they have the right to bear arms, as long as they are part of a militia. So unless Aaron and Harvey are part of a military or paramilitary group, then they are in effect going against the constitution of America.

Common canard. Historically, the militia was every able-bodied man.

Please, do not get me started on this.


"The militia is the whole people, except for a few public officials" James Madison

America's colonists brought with them a militia tradition centuries old in England. The "Great Fyrd" of Anglo Saxon England recognized the duty of every member of the community, as early as the 9th century, to be armed for the purpose of common defense. This was "more an abstract ideal than actual military or ganization...." This tradition also recognized the right of every freeman to be allowed to keep arms suitable to his station in life. The development of this right in English history is particularly significant, in that England never underwent a foreign invasion after 1066.

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by elder999
America's colonists brought with them a militia tradition centuries old in England. The "Great Fyrd" of Anglo Saxon England recognized the duty of every member of the community, as early as the 9th century, to be armed for the purpose of common defense. This was "more an abstract ideal than actual military or ganization...." This tradition also recognized the right of every freeman to be allowed to keep arms suitable to his station in life. The development of this right in English history is particularly significant, in that England never underwent a foreign invasion after 1066.

So you took an english law and claimed it as your own without ammending it? Call me an idiot, but do you not have your own laws and not steal them from other countries to subsitute your own?

[elder999]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
So you took an english law and claimed it as your own without ammending it? Call me an idiot, but do you not have your own laws and not steal them from other countries to subsitute your own?

Will, prior to the Declaration of Independence, they were mostly British subjects. Of course many of the laws they used came from British law.......
....are you being inhumanly obtuse again?;)

[Matt Molloy]

Originally posted by elder999
Don't sleep with a gun under the pillow, but there are sometimes three loaded weapons (usually just one) readily deployed in my home, and I've defied people in the past to find them.

Think waste paper basket, for starters.....

Three guns? :eek:

All due respect Aaron, alright, they may not find them. But if they do.. Hey! Instant OK Corral.

Call me daft but I was hoping for an answer along the lines of,

"There is one gun, it's in a very sturdy gun cabinet which is locked and I sleep with the key beneath my pillow."

I'd agree with one of your earlier posts however that a dog is probably a good option. You don't want to see what one highly motivated chihuahua (sp?) can do. ;)

I guess that I'm just not a gun person but hey, your country, your rules. I'm just rather glad that we don't do that over here. (Although I think that it's still a law that in Britain we have to practice bow and arrow for a certain amount of time on a Sunday under the guidance of a minister. Dates back to the medieval days or something. Kyudo, here we come!:D )

Cheers,

Matt.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Matt Molloy
Three guns? :eek:

All due respect Aaron, alright, they may not find them. But if they do.. Hey! Instant OK Corral.

Call me daft but I was hoping for an answer along the lines of,

"There is one gun, it's in a very sturdy gun cabinet which is locked and I sleep with the key beneath my pillow."

I'd agree with one of your earlier posts however that a dog is probably a good option. You don't want to see what one highly motivated chihuahua (sp?) can do. ;)

I guess that I'm just not a gun person but hey, your country, your rules. I'm just rather glad that we don't do that over here. (Although I think that it's still a law that in Britain we have to practice bow and arrow for a certain amount of time on a Sunday under the guidance of a minister. Dates back to the medieval days or something. Kyudo, here we come!:D )

Cheers,

Matt.

Well, there's only three whenever there's an escape from the penitentiary.....
....and, no, I'm not kidding. Jailbreaks happen pretty regularly, and, as I said, we live in a fairly remote area.
...And my wife is beautiful...not just pretty. The kind of beautiful that's made slightly drunk but otherwise law-abiding citizens risk bodily harm, never mind some escaped dirtbag with nothing to lose.

There is a very sturdy gun cabinet.,,,it houses the other rifles, shotguns, pistols and paraphernelia

[Matt Molloy]

Originally posted by elder999
Well, there's only three whenever there's an escape from the penitentiary.....
....and, no, I'm not kidding. Jailbreaks happen pretty regularly, and, as I said, we live in a fairly remote area.
...And my wife is beautiful...not just pretty. The kind of beautiful that's made slightly drunk but otherwise law-abiding citizens risk bodily harm, never mind some escaped dirtbag with nothing to lose.

There is a very sturdy gun cabinet.,,,it houses the other rifles, shotguns, pistols and paraphernelia

Alright. Trying to come at this from an American perspective, I can maybe understand why you have them but to have them around the house where there is a possibility of them being found, however small, escapes me. I think it may be a culture clash thing.

I've lived near prisons, and known a lot of prisoners and ex-prisoners, and my line of reasoning was that if they escaped, they would want to put as many miles twixt the prison and themselves as possible, not commit another crime as soon as they were out that would carry the risk of landing them straight back in the arms of the law. Again, maybe a culture thing.

As to the wife. You're a lucky man. I am also a lucky man. I think that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world (as I'm sure that Harvey thinks about his wife etc, etc) but I trust that law abiding citizens have enough self control to lay off.

Maybe the people that I know just have a bit more self control.

I think I'll leave the arsenal. Not my thing.

Hope the above ramble makes some kind of sense.

Cheers,

Matt.

[Senjojutsu]

Just a point, Burglary (at night) by both British and American common law history and statute is always considered a more serious offense than simple breaking and entering, trespass, or theft.   If fact the burglary act was just considered just a predecessor of possible rape or murder.

Over two decades ago, a liberal pansy judge in Massachusetts tried to create a new legal concept of "a duty to retreat" in a court case ruling.   It pissed off the normally sheepish populace so much the state legislature (surprisingly) passed a new law.

Massachusetts General Laws c. 278, § 8A, inserted by St. 1981, c. 696, reads as follows:

"In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling.   There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

However with all this posting swagger always remember two things:

1) Self defense is an "affirmative defense" used by a defendant.   You admit to the act, but you (and not the state prosecutor) must then prove your action was justified to the judge/jury.

2) When do you have a right to use self-defense to kill, or even seriously injure, someone in the USA?

When you are willing to endure more than a three-year long legal ordeal of both potential criminal and civil actions against you on your dime.

Lawyers bill you in six minute increments don't you know, you should budget at least fifty thousand ($50,000) in legal bills.

The family of the dead perp will try to convince a court he was getting his life in order, after completing his last drug rehab or jail term, and was about to start junior college in the fall, or better yet sign a rap recording contract - when you wantonly used lethal force.   In fact you would be financially lucky if you did happen to blow away an escaped convicted murderer, that wouldn't most likely make it to either criminal or civil court.
:mad:

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by elder999
Will, prior to the Declaration of Independence, they were mostly British subjects. Of course many of the laws they used came from British law.......
....are you being inhumanly obtuse again?;)

Well I would not know about being obtuse as I have no idea what it means. (damn secondary education that failed).

But I am here to piss and moan at any reason to wind people up. I consider it a hobby now. :D Even if I do say what I say is right and others think of me as wrong.

[Matt Molloy]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Well I would not know about being obtuse as I have no idea what it means. (damn secondary education that failed).

In context it would mean deliberately annoyingly slow to understand Will. Unless of course he means deliberately greater than 90 degrees. ;) :p

Cheers,

Matt.

[Soulend]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Even if I do say what I say is right and others think of me as wrong.

Alright, say something that cannot be logically refuted then. It's rather amusing when anti-gunners try to argue the point, as they typically know nothing about guns, gun laws, or the lawful application of deadly force. Have at it, though.:D

Try to think up a bit more of a complex argument, however, perhaps something philosophically or moorally rather than techinically based. Those thusfar have been rather easy, such as the "why study martial arts when you have guns", or the "militia" thing. Iain, please coach him on less easily destroyed positions on tnis subject.

[Maro]

Originally posted by Soulend
Alright, say something that cannot be logically refuted then. It's rather amusing when anti-gunners try to argue the point, as they typically know nothing about guns, gun laws, or the lawful application of deadly force. Have at it, though.:D



Really? Some of us are fairly competent with Firearms. I've shot Browning 9mm Hi-powers, 7.62mm FN SLRs, .303 Enflields, 5.56 mm SA80's, and various Hunting rifles ans Shotguns.

Just because you are legally entitled to them and we are no longer (both in England and in Oz) doesn't necessarily mean we have no experience.

I find that Amusing.

Why can't some of you realise that we are simply not interested in having the right to bear arms.

I'm not a Hoplophobe - I practise Archery and Sword, some places have different ideas to the USA, why can't you accept that?

It doesn't make us backward or any less able to look after ourselves.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Maro

I'm not a Hoplophobe - I practise Archery and Sword, some places have different ideas to the USA, why can't you accept that?

It doesn't make us backward or any less able to look after ourselves.

I don't think anyone meant to imply that it did, at least as a generalization. Y'all can stay disarmed, for all I care, though I find Britain's trend towards a populace that is legally hampered from defending itself troubling and sad.If you used your bow or sword to repel a burglar in England, you'd probably still be in trouble, and, while John is correct about the legal and civil liabilities in varoius jurisdictions in the U.S., he lives in Massachussets, while I'm in New Mexico, the rootin', tootin', Wild West in many ways, and I'd be well within my rights-in temrs of local legal precedence-resorting to lethal force to repel a burglar who had enetered my home, especially if he didn't leave after a warning. According to the article, the best thing I should do is cooperate with someone who has invaded my home-give them what they want in the hopes that they'll leave without deciding to kill all the witnesses.

[ScottUK]

Sorry to join in a bit late...

Here's an interesting bit of advice by a jujutsu lawyer (ex-bobby) friend of mine...

"I felt this person was a severe threat to my (or other) life and I took action to ensure my safety."

Common law states that we can defend ourselves by using justifiable force against the assailant. This is the difficult bit - justification. This is where the bastards defending the guy who burgled you twist it all round in court.

Justification is more difficult when combined with a tokushu keibo... :D

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Well as most Americans have this steadfst belief that it is their god given right to bear arms, then maybe they should look at the 2nd ammendent again and in full. Fot it states that they have the right to bear arms, as long as they are part of a militia.
I think you should look at he 2nd Ammendment in full.

It does not say, "...the right of the people to join a militia shall not be infringed." That is a red herring used by gun-rights foes.

The 2nd Ammendment says, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Our Founding Fathers knew from history and experience what happens when monarchs and dictators used their militias to force the citizens into submission; and they knew that an unarmed citizenry was not capable of regulating the militia.

They also knew that by keeping all citizens ready to respond in times of crisis a large standing army would be less imperative.

So the 2nd Ammendment has more than one purpose. Most important to remember, though, is that the 2nd Ammendment is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights of individuals, not of State Sponsored bodies.

[Soulend]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

[Sillal]

Wel lwhat is the point in learning to defend yourself when all you have to do is point a gun and shoot someone? Seems pointless to me that your learning a fighting self defense form and yet are willing to shoot someone without knowing if you are able to use it in a "Real" environment. You may as well do Gun Ryu and kick all the other MA skills into touch.

I find it disturbing that some people think guns and gun training has no place in MA. Through some of the most turbulent warring states periods of Japan's history they used firearms, and its just falacy from a MA standpoint (for those claiming they are learning it for self protection) to not take into accout these weapons.

Also its kind of interesting that people think using a gun requires no skill. While it is true that someone with no skill could kill another man the same certainly applies to any form of weapon from a sword to bare hands. Like the afore mentioned methods however you can also gain a great deal of skill with a firearm through years of dedicated practice and instruction.

To imply it takes no skill, and is not part of martial arts to learn techniques on both sides of the barrel is just silly no matter what country you come from.

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by Sillal
I find it disturbing that some people think guns and gun training has no place in MA. Through some of the most turbulent warring states periods of Japan's history they used firearms, and its just falacy from a MA standpoint (for those claiming they are learning it for self protection) to not take into accout these weapons.

Also its kind of interesting that people think using a gun requires no skill. While it is true that someone with no skill could kill another man the same certainly applies to any form of weapon from a sword to bare hands. Like the afore mentioned methods however you can also gain a great deal of skill with a firearm through years of dedicated practice and instruction.

To imply it takes no skill, and is not part of martial arts to learn techniques on both sides of the barrel is just silly no matter what country you come from.

Have you seen the film Equalibrium with that gun kata? Now if you own a gun and can do all that, then I would turn round and say ok, keep the gun.:D

I come on here though and kick up a fuss knowing that someone would fall for what I say and start spouting off history of why they should be armed, for what reason and why, and I just throw in a anti comment and give people burst blood vessels in their heads by being an ignorant limey that knows nothing.

It is amazing how you all fall for it, and why stop when I am having fun. :laugh:

So how many states in the USA have opted not to have their citizens carry firearms? After all the state can overrule the congress and opt out.

[Shitoryu Dude]

No they can't. Gun ownership is a RIGHT enumerated in the constitution. The states cannot limit those rights, they can only expand upon them.

:beer:

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
No they can't. Gun ownership is a RIGHT enumerated in the constitution. The states cannot limit those rights, they can only expand upon them.

:beer:

So why is it illegal in New York State to not carry a hidden firearm and most of the country can?

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
So why is it illegal in New York State to not carry a hidden firearm and most of the country can?
Because the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the constitutionality of concealed carry in public. (And I suspect you meant "illegal to carry" and not "illegal to not carry" as you wrote.)

But gun ownership, possession in the home or fixed place of business, etc. are legal in all states.

A few cities have banned handgun ownership, California has banned nunchaku ownership, etc., and I expect the the Supreme Court won't be able to avoid this issue much longer.

[Soulend]

It's not illegal to not carry a hidden firearm anywhere.

And it's not technically illegal to own or carry one either, provided the proper permit is obtained:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=NY

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by Soulend
It's not illegal to not carry a hidden firearm anywhere.
So when all these TV cop shows on Reality TV say that some person was arrested for carrying a conceled weapon are all wrong? So why they get arrested for it if it is not illegal?

[Soulend]

You said "illegal to not carry" one. :D

See link above. Likely the offender had no permit, was a prior felon, or was on probation.

[The Nephilim]

Originally posted by Soulend
You said "illegal to not carry" one. :D

See link above. Likely the offender had no permit, was a prior felon, or was on probation.

Bah! You changed your post when I posted after I read it. But it seems that police do not like conceled weapons in New York State. As a home defence I guess it is normal, but to walk around with it conceled is not good. Unless you can prove you are going to a firing range (or nightclub, of which some rappers seems to mistake both for).

Like what Goldie Lookin' Chain sang: Gun's don't kill people, rappers do.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
...As a home defence I guess it is normal, but to walk around with it conceled is not good....
That's like saying you should only carry a first-aid kit if you're going to the scene of an accident.

The reason for carrying outside the home is because you never know when you might need it.

On two occasions I have drawn my weapon while off duty; once when a gang of thugs was beating up a teenaged boy who they said had stolen something from them, and once when some guys in a car started chasing me for reasons I never learned.

I didn't fire in either case, and in the first cases the police arrived to find all parties alive and well. In the second case, after trying to evade them for more than ten minutes I stopped my car and got out. The other car turned around and drove off at high speed when they saw my weapon.

[Soulend]

Originally posted by The Nephilim
Bah! You changed your post when I posted after I read it.

Only thing I changed was to add the link to New York's gun laws and a short intro for it, to wit:
And it's not technically illegal to own or carry one either, provided the proper permit is obtained:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=NY
My remark about your statement was left quite unmolested :D

Originally posted by The Nephilim
As a home defence I guess it is normal, but to walk around with it conceled is not good.

How so? Or do you mean from a police perspective? With the proper permit it doesn't legally matter where you're going, though I should point out that at least in this state there are places where you cannot carry - permit or not - which includes any place that serves alcohol. Which I guess puts those rappers you mention at a distinct legal disadvantage. :)

[Soulend]

Originally posted by Maro
Really? Some of us are fairly competent with Firearms. I've shot Browning 9mm Hi-powers, 7.62mm FN SLRs, .303 Enflields, 5.56 mm SA80's, and various Hunting rifles ans Shotguns.

Just because you are legally entitled to them and we are no longer (both in England and in Oz) doesn't necessarily mean we have no experience.

I find that Amusing.

Why can't some of you realise that we are simply not interested in having the right to bear arms.

I'm not a Hoplophobe - I practise Archery and Sword, some places have different ideas to the USA, why can't you accept that?

It doesn't make us backward or any less able to look after ourselves.

Then you would be in the minority in this country. Anti-gunners here don't shoot Hi-Powers or Enfields, because although they could they have no interest in doing so since they are, well, anti-gun; and it would be a bit hypocritical for them to go shooting during the weekend and then turn around and call for gun bans over the course of the week. Yourself, on the other hand, no longer have the choice and thus your stance on the issue appears moot as your position has in effect been decided for you.

Why would you shoot and become competent with firearms that you neither have the desire nor the legal right to own, BTW? Seems a bit of an dual exercise in both futility and contradiction to me. Or did you own and enjoy firearms until the government said you no longer could, and then as a happy coincidence decided that you no longer liked them anyway? Rather than amusing, it's simply a different situation. For all intents and purposes you are anti-gun by mandate rather than by choice. It's comfy to be pro-life when one lives somewhere that abortion is illegal, but it's rather a meaningless label - particularly when one has had them before, eh?

I accept other countries' ideas quite freely, nor do I consider them backward. It's not my country, and they are of course free to as they like. Interesting points of view, though.

[Maro]

Originally posted by Soulend
Then you would be in the minority in this country. Anti-gunners here don't shoot Hi-Powers or Enfields, because although they could they have no interest in doing so since they are, well, anti-gun; and it would be a bit hypocritical for them to go shooting during the weekend and then turn around and call for gun bans over the course of the week. Yourself, on the other hand, no longer have the choice and thus your stance on the issue appears moot as your position has in effect been decided for you.

Why would you shoot and become competent with firearms that you neither have the desire nor the legal right to own, BTW? Seems a bit of an dual exercise in both futility and contradiction to me. Or did you own and enjoy firearms until the government said you no longer could, and then as a happy coincidence decided that you no longer liked them anyway? Rather than amusing, it's simply a different situation. For all intents and purposes you are anti-gun by mandate rather than by choice. It's comfy to be pro-life when one lives somewhere that abortion is illegal, but it's rather a meaningless label - particularly when one has had them before, eh?

I accept other countries' ideas quite freely, nor do I consider them backward. It's not my country, and they are of course free to as they like. Interesting points of view, though.

As I said, I don't dislike Firearms and I am not Anti-gun - I just don't see the need to own one and carry one.

I didn't own them, I shot them when I was in the Air Cadets - I was at that time keen on pursuing a career in the RAF.

I am not Anti-gun by Mandate. There are ways of owning firearms both in the UK and here. I simply don't have the desire to own one. it is not a moot point.

If you accept other countries' ideas then why are you making an allusion to the abortion debate?

It sounds like you are having a go to be honest.

[Soulend]

Originally posted by Maro
As I said, I don't dislike Firearms and I am not Anti-gun - I just don't see the need to own one and carry one.

If you are not anti-gun, then why did you take exception to my comment, which was:
It's rather amusing when anti-gunners try to argue the point
Obviously I was not referring to you then, since you now say that you are not anti-gun; correct? So all of the weapons you fired and claim proficiency with are a non-sequitur, as the comment didn't apply to you in the first place.:confused:

Originally posted by Maro
I am not Anti-gun by Mandate. There are ways of owning firearms both in the UK and here. I simply don't have the desire to own one. it is not a moot point.
So don't own one then - fine by me. Nobody's trying to force you to.

Originally posted by Maro
If you accept other countries' ideas then why are you making an allusion to the abortion debate?
Sorry, I'm unclear as to what the metaphor had specifically to do with other countries' ideas. It had to do with being against something which is essentially illegal anyway. I could have chosen any metaphor for this.

Originally posted by Maro
It sounds like you are having a go to be honest.
The impression is mutual, Mr. Rous. It seems we're both happy with the current situations in our respective countries so I don't quite see what the problem is. Ya'll can outlaw tea-kettles for all I care, though it will certainly strike me as odd.

[Maro]

fair enough