Harassee Gets Time
 

So it doesn't matter if you're getting vandalized or not, point a gun, serve the time.

It's in England right?

They've lost any sense where it relates to individual rights over there.

There's a guy in jail for shooting a burglar that was in his own home, so yeah, I'm not surprised.

If it was in England.

Point? She shot the gun. Besides, this is Britain.

While largely I agree, this statement is shit. Pure and utter shit. You can defend yourself against home invasion and attack with deadly force in the UK and be protect by the law. End of story. What you cannot do is use unreasonable force(shoot them lots of times or beat someone's head in with a shovel) or shoot people who are running away. The guy that got jailed shot the guy while he was running away after getting out of the house when he was discovered, in the back with a shotgun. In assult situations you are able to do what is necessary to defend yourself until the attacker backs off or is down, I have personally been told by an officer in a public meeting that the best advice they can give for the area i live in is to carry a sharp object and aim for once in the eye, you'll be fine in the eyes of the law. England has serious civil rights and liberties issues but this is FUD from the NRA and the tories.

Judging by the terminology used inthe article it was in the UK. Thanks to another questionable piece of UK law if she'd used a camera instead they could have had an Anti-social Behaviour Order placed on them which could have stopped them being near her house, talking to her kids or pratically anything else on threat of imprisonment.

You can own shotguns in the UK? That comes as a bit of a surprise.

I should qualify - sharp object that is not a weapon as such and you have a legitimate reason to be carrying. His examples for the girls was a comb.

Yes beestie.

Supposedly that's the case here as well, but we've had numerous cases of the perpetrator winning lawsuits against property owners who fucked them up during the course of defending themselves and their homes/businesses. and it's a shame. Suddenly, during the course of being victimized by a criminal, you have to start minding your P's and Q's or you might somehow violate the civil rights of the asshole that just attacked you. Dead people don't sue. Shoot till you hear clickclickclickclick.Get something sharp and aim for the eye? In a high-stress situation, your fine motor skills go to pot, even if you're trained to respond to it. That's why cops don't try to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand - they can't aim that finely under stress. That's also why trying to poke out the eye of your attacker will just put you in his reach, and the reach of whatever weapon he's carrying. Cop or no, that guy gave tactically unsound advice. I guess when your right of self-protection has been so severely eroded, you must resort to desperate measures. At least get a can of OC-10, which can be reasonably effective in allowing you to escape an attacker until you get far enough away not to be a threat to his rights.

Yes, that's always an effective deterrent to crooks. Make something against the law, and they'll be too scared of prison to try it.

:shotgun: :skull:

With what? A dead parrot maybe?

You're kidding right? That sounds about as effective as the restraining orders issued in domestic violence cases here in the colonies.

So, you can kill someone with a sharp object, as long as it's not a weapon?

And what is "FUD"?

Misinformation spread for the purposes of creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

This, ladies and gentlemens, is what the anti-gun lobby + the spleen-dripping liberals would like to see happen in the good ole US of A. I don't own a gun and don't plan on owning one... unless the government tells me I can't.

Fortunately, the Constitutional definition of "arms" still includes guns. For now.

But, thanks to this thread, I now know to carry an afro pic with me if I ever tour the UK. Oh, and a digital camera so I can take a snapshot or two of the guy while he's pistol whipping me into the next life.

Shitstorm!
FUD - Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.

You're not allowed to carry weaponry, so if i get mugged and stab the guy with a 12" butterfly blade there's going to be some questions about what I was doing with it in the first place.

Not really, they seem to work, the overall response has been positive and they've been used to great effect in some estates in situations where you have people doing things that are borderline illegal but have a very negative effect on quality of life. There are ways of giving evidence for them that don't involve giving up your identity and you can collect evidence easily to prove they've been broken.

Iron bar? Kitchen knife? Personally in my room i could list scalpels, tripods, steel rods, excato knife, swiss army knives, kitchen knife and a cricket bat.

Antisocial behaviour order - kids messing up gardens, not organised crime. They deal with a specific kind of problem that has been growing here, bored kids and fucked up families that cause hell for estates and villages and they seem to work.

mrnoodle - I agree the advice is not exactly top-knotch self-defence training. Capscian sprays are illegal, I know, it's fucked up. There is some background to all this, a few months back the tories made a huge issue out of it, shitting on about how people defending their families could go to jail and all the usual emotive crap, turns out something like 6 people had been jailed since it came into force and all in circumstances that made it clear they had used unreasonable force. If some 16y.o kid breaks into your home I'm not sure you should be able to fill him full of lead as he's jumping out the window, maybe you are but I don't think the law is unreasonable there. In assault situations it's more complicated but the principle remains - just because you're under threat doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the person. Maybe you disagree but that's a separate argument, my point is that UK law is not as unreasonable as TS made it sound. However I do think CS spray & other non-leathal weapons should be legal.

These things can go both ways, I don't think people should be allowed to set up mantraps either.

That's the advantage of everyone bing armed. There is no fear and doubt because of the uncertainty of whether the other guy is going heeled.

This is the thing. I live in a fucking rough area in london and it's not uncommon for me to be out on the streets, sometimes alone at all hours of the morning(as in the ones before dawn). I've never had a problem and if I did I would be very, very surprised if the guy pulled out a gun, outside areas with very serious gang problems gun crimes are very unusual. Everyone armed may to a degree, work, sometimes but it doesn't make for the kind of society in which I would want to live. I like the fact I feel safe without having to carry a firearm.

You can't point/shoot a real gun under these circumstances in most US states.

Texas allows you to defend your property. Most states require that you be at risk of losing your life before you are justified in the use of "deadly force."

Much as I hate British gun law, I think the court ruled properly. Provocation is not justification.

I've seen very nice combs as well as hairbrushes and ice scrapers that are made of especially strong polymers ...

(The item I was looking for that I couldn't find was an actual hairbrush that rather than having a concealed knife just had a very pointy handle ...)

Except that I've had several people brought to me after being sprayed where the cop (and 8 of his cohorts) were spraying the dude and they comment, "I would have been better off throwing the can at him."

Lots of our local departments have tazers now ... and we've had people charge through the tazing. Doesn't always bring the guy down. The most recent one, who was okay until he was being transported in the police car and freaked out, kicking out the window of the car and bending the doorframe, had to be tazered three times to drop him. And yes, the hooks set right each time.

IIRC the long points bits are for defining parts or somesuch but are a good length and pointiness to be very effective.

Looks like tazering is now used as an alternative to hitting the guy in the knees with the bat.

Which is a little weird, since they were sold as the alternative to shooting the guy.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it sensible. As we see every day. I think the real issue is only going to show up down the road for the citizens of England. As we know, things aren't ready to get better yet, they haven't gotten bad enough yet.

That being said, she overreacted and the court appears to have ruled within it's abilities.

It's still silly rules though.

Um, when are you expecting it to turn up? IIRC the law has been around since the 70s.
Which bit is silly? Firing a gun at someone's feet and threatening someone with a gun in response to pouring water of your son's car?

What is, in your opinion the real issue? We can't own guns here? We can't kill intruders with total legal impudy, which as wolf stated, is the same as in most of the US?

The real issue is that when people feel their safety is threatened, they have no idea what is or isn't an appropriate response. Their innate need to defend themselves is short-circuited by fear of reprisal from the government that's supposed to be protecting them. It doesn't help, either, that calling the cops and getting someone arrested is essentially inviting the bad guy to seek revenge when his lawyer gets him a get-out-of-jail-free card.

ah, screw it. move to arizona. you can open carry, conceal carry with an easily acquired permit, and if someone pisses you off we have plenty of open desert in which to bury the offending parties carcass.

......so in all confrontations the only real solution, in your eyes, is to shoot them until they collapse in a bloody heap? I'm not using hyperbole here, that honestly seems to be what you're arguing.

i was being over the top Jag.

i don't have any solutions to society's problems, but i do feel that anyone who so much as steps foot into my home without invitation should fall in a bloody heap. i don't care whether they are coming or going. if they hadn't entered my domain in the first place i wouldn't have had the reason to drop them.

to paraphrase Chris Rock - if you don't want the police to F with you, don't do stupid shit.

if you don't want me to shoot you, don't break into my home or illegally enter my property in any way. hell, if my truck is in the driveway and i see you break into it, i should be able to drop you. IMO.

was talking about noodle, he seemed to be implying that in any confrontational situation the only permanant solution was someone to die.

I disagree with you but *shrugs*.

No, a responsible shooter saves the firearm for use as a last resort.

And do you want to take the time to assess whether you're about to get killed or just mugged?

Any guy comes at me with a pipe or a knife gets to play christmas tree.

Or, in one sentence: If you try to victimize me in my home, I will kill you.

jag, if someone is mucking around your place, how can you possibly know what their intentions are? You already know they aren't good intentions, and they could include ending your life. Do you really want to take a chance on anything less than the strongest possible defense you can muster?

TS:
This implies that unless you kill the guy, the problem isn't over, that was my gripe there.

Beyond that, the situations where people were jailed in UK were ones where they clearly weren't in personal danger yet still used or attempted to use deadly force. I don't think that's right, if someone is running away I don't give a fuck if they pissed on your cat and smashed your family photos, you shouldn't have the right to kill them. Same again, if you see some guy breaking into your car I don't think you should be able to empty a clip into him. If he turned around and came at you with a knife it's another story. In situations where you are in personal danger you are permitted to use deadly force until the threat is gone. In the UK that isn't in the vast majority of situations going to be a firearm, it could however be one of many other objects capable of killing someone. If someone came at me yes, I would almost certainly try and disable them in a way that would also kill them.

To nail this real nice and hard. If I was in say, Switzerland where I could quite reasonably and would probably own and have with me a pistol: Let's game it. I wake up, hear a noise, take out the gun, get up and go hunting, walk into living room, see a guy there. If he comes at me, I'm going to shoot him till he stops coming at me, if he runs off, I'm just going to make sure he's gone and call the cops.

I guess in short I value life, including criminals, higher than property.

My point isn't that you should shoot the kid who sets a bag of poop on fire on your porch.

My point is that if you hear a noise and walk into your living room to find that someone has illegally entered your home, you are already justified in using lethal force in most jurisdictions. Unless your ESP is more effective than mine, you have no idea what the guy is there for, and your life is in danger. Now, you don't HAVE to shoot him, or even own a gun -- that's a personal decision. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your regard for his life is reciprocated.

if i walk into my living room, with a firearm in my hand, to find a burglar/unknown/unwelcome person there i will not wonder what their intentions are. i will assume there are not in my best interests and i will kill them. any other course of action allows them to possibly cause me harm. it isn't about property. i can replace absolutely any and everything i own. i cannot replace my wife, my child, or myself. my doors are locked, my windows are locked. anyone other than those i've welcomed in, has made a deliberate choice to violate the safety of my home. i don't care one little bit about their intentions after they do that.

If I'm reading correctly, jaguar seems to be referring to people who are already fleeing, while you are referring to people whose reaction to you has not yet become clear. Jaguar, the UK law, and the law in many US states say you are not entitled to kill someone if they are already fleeing, but if you discover someone in your home, and you don't know if they're about to pull a gun on you, killing them is justified self defense.

Gripe with the guy or gripe with the law enforcement community's inability to enforce some of its laws effectively?

I don't mean this disparagingly, but your use of the word 'disable' in this context may be a good indicator of the difference in thinking across the ponds.

I don't value property as property per se. I value it as how much of my life it would take to replace it. My time is more valuable than the time of someone who is only willing to take the time to steal it.

They're stealing more than property, they're stealing your quality of life, your piece of mind, your ability to feel safe and secure in the one place it should be guaranteed.
Any time you leave your home you have to be wary, not unduly nervous, but alert to possible trouble. Home is the one place you can completely relax...sleep....naked. :)

My gripe was with noodle's assertion that the legal system was completely and totally ineffective in dissuading criminals to seek revenge, something I've not heard of happening after a common assult or burglary.


[/quote]If I'm reading correctly, jaguar seems to be referring to people who are already fleeing[quote]
Yes, thankyou, that is my point.

I use the word disable in a very clinical & absolute sense, to highlight this - a 12ga sabot round though the chest would be an effective way of disabling someone.

Beyond that, *shrugs*, it's situation dependent & individual perspective. Each to their own. I hope however I've made the nature of UK law on the whole issue a little clearer.

I think that the whole idea of disarming a people who was founded on, and the idea reinforced by its founders, everyone having guns is rather foreign.

People, both here and abroad, will say that we've matured as a country to the point that that isn't true anymore, that a civilized country doesn't need guns, but I think that if you actually look at the history of the world and notice how right our ODWGs are turning out to be you'll see that they are more right now than they've ever been.

i think there's another piece to the argument as well. by disarming the citizenry, we can fool ourselves into thinking that finally we have this "violence" thing fixed. in reality, we're no safer than we were 300 years ago -- we're perhaps less safe, although we like to think otherwise.

anyway, my point is that we all want to disassociate ourselves from our inherently violent nature, and mistakenly think that a law banning weapons is a step in that direction.

We aren't violent. We're selfish and short-sighted. Violence is easier than compromise or understanding.

well to throw in my 2 cents worth.. I walk everywhere (then again I have the advantage of being 6'5 and look a little mean if I want) I have been jumped a couple of times, and so far I have been the one holding the knife... but then again, I don't want to cut anyone, I mean I work with animal parts all day every day for the past 15 years, uh... if i want to cut you and make it work I can.. anyway! I started just carrying a can of pepper spray (I tell you what! I tried that stuff out on myself before I wanted to use it on another person.. ohhh.. ouch (and yes I was drunk at the time!))

and as a side note guns are for cowards.. it takes little skill to be able to 'point and click someone to oblivion' to duel, that's a whole 'nother matter :) then again I can be rather archaic

it isn't about courage. it is about self preservation and protection. i have no interest in showing my bravery in a dangerous situation. i would much rather point and click someone to death than find out my fists, spray, blade weren't quite enough. in fact, when they get laser death rays to shoot out of our eyes, controlled only by our thoughts - I'll be the first one in line to by the system.

Are you implying "lazy" as well?

I guess this is where your user title comes from, yes? Interesting. Maybe you could make thread about it. Butcher? Forensic veterinarian? County roadkill manager? Hmmm.
:confused:

Lazy is subjective.

At what point does it go from being an effort to work less hard to being lazy? That's why I think it falls under short-sighted.

From a less intellectually pretentious viewpoint, yes, lazy as well. :)

I've been called a lotta things, but never have I been described as less intellectualy pretentious than anyone.

I was following this line of thought: violence is bad, compromise and understanding is good, violence is easy compromise and understanding is hard. Choosing violence over compromise and understanding is like choosing bad and easy over good and hard. From there it's not a big leap to lazy.

I think of the times when there was violence in my life, and your shorthand works well. It was easier to choose violence to push across the finish line than it was to labor at compromise and understanding. Whether I dress up the violence in the clothes of laziness, exasperation or fear, is not, in my experience, relevant. There have been no experiences where it was "me or him". And yet, violence.

When I ask myself "Why?", lazy is as good as any other answer and better than most.

:) I was referring to myself as the intellectually pretentious one this time.

It's a problem I've been falling into since I've been taking philosophy courses. I'm sure there are worse problems to have though.

no. not really.

Not even getting turned into a newt?

well, getting turned into a newt would suck, i guess.
but at least there are lots of checks to be collected on the talking head circuit. "Live, from The Heritage Foundation. Today we are with Newt Ging..."

At least I try to avoid the problem. I've met some people here that make my eyes glaze over their brow is so high.

Thankyou for demonstrating your lack of knowledge of history.

As for the political implications of firearms ownership - not any more, not really. It's never going to come to that, it took a while but we've got the whole bread and circuses thing pretty down pat. As long as the cable TV and pulp-news cycle keeps on rolling the chances of any kind of armed insurrection that has enough support to get anywhere are nil.

Hmm. So I should take kung fu lessons and maybe hire a personal trainer in case some punk 1/4 my age wants my wallet or my life?
In that case the bastard has stolen my life before I've even met him. Taking my money(training expenses) and lifestyle (freetime) just so I can defend myself and my property by intimidating or subduing him without hurting him?
Fuck that, he's a dead man walking.

I knew a rabid feminist that did all the healthy training and stuff, but the fact remained she was a 5' 2" blonde that was built like a brick shithouse. She made sure she got equality in employment and business. But the one thing that I had, that she envied, is the ability to walk down any street, at any hour, with minimal danger.
They didn't call those Colt's the equalizer for nothing. :p