PDA

View Full Version : Right to self-defence in the home



bekisman
29-Jun-11, 13:43
Right to self-defence in the home

About time it was clarified - this applies to England, wonder what they will do up here?

'Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.

He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.
But the government is set to place people's right to defend their property, long present in common law, in statute law.
"It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said.
Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing or "getting their friends together to beat them up".

"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.
"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587

weezer 316
29-Jun-11, 13:48
If someone breaks into your house you should have the right to blow their heads off, and Im not joking. The Tony Martin issue was a joke and the Asian businessman who put one of the people that tied up his family into a wheelchair by beating him up with a cricket bat should have been charged with nothing more than bringing the game of cricket into disrepute.

NickInTheNorth
29-Jun-11, 13:54
If someone breaks into your house you should have the right to blow their heads off, and Im not joking. The Tony Martin issue was a joke and the Asian businessman who put one of the people that tied up his family into a wheelchair by beating him up with a cricket bat should have been charged with nothing more than bringing the game of cricket into disrepute.

What absolute rubbish.

If those rules applied then lynch mobs would be perfectly fine.

Yes use what force you need to to defend your home or person, but certainly the latter case you mention is vigilantism and should be deplored by all right thinking people.

sandyr1
29-Jun-11, 14:06
What absolute rubbish.

If those rules applied then lynch mobs would be perfectly fine.

Yes use what force you need to to defend your home or person, but certainly the latter case you mention is vigilantism and should be deplored by all right thinking people.

Well said! One can use as much force as is necessary, or 'on the other side of the coin', as liltle force as is necessary to effect their purpose.

oldmarine
29-Jun-11, 14:25
Looks like the ultra liberals are coming out of the wood work. We've had this problem for too long of a time in the USA. Now you people in GB are stuck with the problem. No one appears to have the right to defend their own home.

shazzap
29-Jun-11, 14:39
I would defend, my family, myself and home. With what ever means available. law or no law.

sandyr1
29-Jun-11, 14:49
I would defend, my family, myself and home. With what ever means available. law or no law.

Perhaps....a thought....within reason, and of course 'normal care and judgement'.
Blanket statements like that are quite wonderful and awe inspiring, but Common Sense like Common Law should apply.

_Ju_
29-Jun-11, 14:49
Sorry, but the American example has not lead to reduction in violent crime. Quite to the contrary as statistics prove.

Better Out Than In
29-Jun-11, 15:02
Does this include Johova's Witnesses?

NickInTheNorth
29-Jun-11, 15:09
I would defend, my family, myself and home. With what ever means available. law or no law.

Statements like this help no one in a debate. It is simple to test the truth of the matter.

Let's play hypotheticals.

In your home for some bizarre reason there is a nuclear bomb. You have the detonator. The nuke will take out the entire town / city in which you live. A burglar appears.

Do you press the button?

Clearly the answer is no, therefore you will not use whatever means are available. You will do what any right thinking person would do, take whatever action you can to stop the threat to you and yours, and when the threat is gone away you will stop your action.

So if the intruder flees you let him go, or when he is unconscious you stop hitting him with your baseball bat, or when he is dead you stop shooting/stabbing etc.

All perfectly fine and dandy, but when he flees you hunt him down and then kill him/her? Not fine at all, and you should be locked up for it.

DeHaviLand
29-Jun-11, 15:13
If someone breaks into your house you should have the right to blow their heads off, and Im not joking. The Tony Martin issue was a joke and the Asian businessman who put one of the people that tied up his family into a wheelchair by beating him up with a cricket bat should have been charged with nothing more than bringing the game of cricket into disrepute.

Tony Martin shot a fleeing burglar in the back. Furthermore, he shot him with an illegally held shotgun. Tony Martin deserved every one of his 5 years in jail. If Tony Martin had shot the thief square in the chest, while he was still in the house, I would have no problem with it whatsoever.

Better Out Than In
29-Jun-11, 15:21
As this original post stated you have a common law right [in England] to use reasonable force to protect your home and family. So if an intruder is injured unecessarily you could be liable to prosecution. If you example you eject an intruder outside your garden gate forcibly and he just lands on the pavement and is OK then you ar ewithin your rights; if you throw him a little too hard and he gets bruise or cut then that might be considered unreasonable force. If a burgular comes at you with a knife and you use a cricket bat to break his wrist and drop the knife that may also be OK (in fact may even be OK outside your property) - if you brain him or hit him more than once that would would be an offence. So an old lady randomly sticking an intruder with a knife, unless she had strong reasons to defend herself, is not technically within the common law; however if she was being intimidated one would expect a judge to take that into account.

By the way if an intruder falls down an unprotected well in your garden, even if breaking and entering, you may well be prosecuted under duty of care laws.

shazzap
29-Jun-11, 15:23
Perhaps....a thought....within reason, and of course 'normal care and judgement'.
Blanket statements like that are quite wonderful and awe inspiring, but Common Sense like Common Law should apply.

I said, and i mean. What ever i need to do. If i or my family were in danger. i would lash out with what ever i could get my hands on.


Statements like this help no one in a debate. It is simple to test the truth of the matter.

Let's play hypotheticals.

In your home for some bizarre reason there is a nuclear bomb. You have the detonator. The nuke will take out the entire town / city in which you live. A burglar appears.

Do you press the button?

Clearly the answer is no, therefore you will not use whatever means are available. You will do what any right thinking person would do, take whatever action you can to stop the threat to you and yours, and when the threat is gone away you will stop your action.

So if the intruder flees you let him go, or when he is unconscious you stop hitting him with your baseball bat, or when he is dead you stop shooting/stabbing etc.

All perfectly fine and dandy, but when he flees you hunt him down and then kill him/her? Not fine at all, and you should be locked up for it.

I am hardly likely, to have access, to a nuclear device now am i. :roll:
I would do as i stated above to Sandy R.
Did i say anywhere that i would run after them.:confused ha ha, chance would be a fine thing. Did i say anywhere that i would hunt them down.:confused

NickInTheNorth
29-Jun-11, 15:30
I said, and i mean. What ever i need to do. If i or my family were in danger. i would lash out with what ever i could get my hands on.




I am hardly likely, to have access, to a nuclear device now am i.

Probably not, that is why it is hypothetical


Did i say anywhere that i would run after them. ha ha, chance would be a fine thing. Did i say anywhere that i would hunt them down.

No you never did, but we now have a much clearer picture of what you would and would not do, and it seems pretty reasonable :)

shazzap
29-Jun-11, 15:39
I was once getting out of my car, at my daughters house. This was when i was fit and able, about 6 years ago.
As i was putting the steering lock on, i heared a commotion. I looked up and saw my daughter being attacked, by an ex of hers. i got out of my car, and went over to defend her. Her ex said, what are you going to do. Hit me with that. i then realised, i still had the crook lock in my hand. i said, yes if i need to. We then ended up grappling, with said crook lock, on the floor. Me a 40 something woman, at the time. Him, in his 20s. I would not let go of the lock. my daughter rang 999. Two weeks later, the police came to see me. they then said, that her ex, had told them. He was the innocent party.

Walter Ego
29-Jun-11, 15:42
If I was confronted by a burglar, I'd log in on here and offer them out for a fight. Toe to toe....

weezer 316
29-Jun-11, 17:40
Nick,

Utter nonsesne. I dont condone vigilantes and what I suggest has nothing to do with that, clearly. Seeing as you like hypothttical situations, here is one minis a nuke set more realistically.

Young, 5ft nothing woman stays on her own when 2 young, strapping men break in and decide to rape her. If she has a shotgun and the full weight of the law behind her using it to defend herself in her own home that fairly evens the odds as otherwise she has no chance. Id back her right to blow their heads clean off over your right to take the moral hgiht ground on places like here anyday considering shes the one facing the threat.

Or does that make her a vigilante?

NickInTheNorth
29-Jun-11, 17:46
Nick,

Utter nonsesne. I dont condone vigilantes and what I suggest has nothing to do with that, clearly. Seeing as you like hypothttical situations, here is one minis a nuke set more realistically.

Young, 5ft nothing woman stays on her own when 2 young, strapping men break in and decide to rape her. If she has a shotgun and the full weight of the law behind her using it to defend herself in her own home that fairly evens the odds as otherwise she has no chance. Id back her right to blow their heads clean off over your right to take the moral hgiht ground on places like here anyday considering shes the one facing the threat.

Or does that make her a vigilante?

I also would totally back her right to do that.

But if she threatened them with the shotgun and they turned round and started running away I would not support her blasting them in the back - like Tony Martin, nor would I be happy to see her follow them down the street after the rape and shoot them in "cold blood".

The two incidents you mention in your original post are somewhat analogous to my scenarios in this post.

John Little
29-Jun-11, 17:48
I told the burglar to come down from the upstairs window that he was trying to lever open with a tyre lever. He jumped down but the tyre lever fell out of his hand. He did not stop but bounced like a cat - I never thought anyone could do that- and jumped clean over the fence into next door's garden where he started calling me foul names.

The look on his face when I pushed the fence over and came for him was a picture that I will treasure all my life. He jumped up onto the back wall of my neighbour's garden which as studded with nails and glass - and one of the nails went into his shoe as I hit him very hard on the rump with a stick I had grabbed. Once over the wall he started hollering and throwing bricks at me - so I threw them back and started shouting 'thief' and people came to their windows.

Then he went away.

But now I know why they are called 'cat' burglars. I never saw the like.

shazzap
29-Jun-11, 17:54
I also would totally back her right to do that.

But if she threatened them with the shotgun and they turned round and started running away I would not support her blasting them in the back - like Tony Martin, nor would I be happy to see her follow them down the street after the rape and shoot them in "cold blood".

The two incidents you mention in your original post are somewhat analogous to my scenarios in this post.

I would be happy, for anyone to follow them down the road, and shoot them.

weezer 316
29-Jun-11, 17:54
I also would totally back her right to do that.

But if she threatened them with the shotgun and they turned round and started running away I would not support her blasting them in the back - like Tony Martin, nor would I be happy to see her follow them down the street after the rape and shoot them in "cold blood".

The two incidents you mention in your original post are somewhat analogous to my scenarios in this post.

Perhaps not. The point of contention then is where does the right to shoot them end?? No legislation can account for that point adequatly I feel, so benefit must be given to the victim at all times

bcsman
29-Jun-11, 18:08
quite right Walter,i however would just threaten them with locking down my thread ;)

If I was confronted by a burglar, I'd log in on here and offer them out for a fight. Toe to toe....

NickInTheNorth
29-Jun-11, 18:11
Perhaps not. The point of contention then is where does the right to shoot them end?? No legislation can account for that point adequatly I feel, so benefit must be given to the victim at all times

very simple, the right to shoot them ends when the threat ends.

So following them down the street to shoot them is a big NO

sandyr1
29-Jun-11, 18:52
I would be happy, for anyone to follow them down the road, and shoot them.

Wowee...so so macho....I wonder?
Yes NITN....U got it....

shazzap
29-Jun-11, 19:04
Wowee...so so macho....I wonder?
Yes NITN....U got it....

What are you going on about.

Rheghead
29-Jun-11, 20:16
It seems absurd to me that Ken Clarke has come out with this. The law has always been clear on this and Reasonable force has always been a legal level of violence to protect one's self and family in the home and has always encompassed the notion of any means of force necessary, even a gun if the need arose.

Quite frankly I feel this is an attempt by the tories to regain political 'tough on crime' heartland after their big U turn on sentencing.

bekisman
29-Jun-11, 21:08
The above pathetic attempt to bring party politics into the thread, will be ignored, but below is what prompted me to post initially, but it's interesting to note (below in Red) that maybe all is not as clear cut as it seems..

My own position is that if someone entered my home with intent, I'd use everything in my power to protect my family and myself

29th June:A man has been charged with aggravated burglary following an attempted break-in at a house in Salford, during which a burglar was killed.
The 23-year-old man, from Hyde, has also been charged with possession of a bladed article.
John Bennell, 27, of Hyde, was stabbed in the chest, at a house in Ethel Avenue, Pendlebury, last Wednesday.
Greater Manchester Police have also arrested another 23-year-old man on suspicion of aggravated burglary.
Householder Peter Flanagan, 59, who was arrested on suspicion of Mr Bennell's murder, has been bailed until 25 July.
A Greater Manchester Police spokesman said inquiries were continuing.
Mr Flanagan's 27-year-old son Neil and his son's 21-year-old girlfriend were also arrested but later released without charge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13954836

NickInTheNorth
29-Jun-11, 21:23
bekisman, Ken Clarke has stated that the law will be put into a new statutory footing and clarified. That is so that in cases such as the one you highlight if it is an incident which falls squarely within the new codified law it will not be required to bring the case to court for a final decision as to any liability.

However in the case you have mentioned it is highly likely I believe that the householder will be charged to allow the courts to decide if he has used reasonable force, or has in fact exceeded the force that can be defined as reasonable in the circumstances.

In the future the courts will still of course be asked to decide where there is any doubt as to liability.

weezer 316
29-Jun-11, 21:36
very simple, the right to shoot them ends when the threat ends.

So following them down the street to shoot them is a big NO

Perhaps I haevnt made my point clear. Not the first time.

Where does the threat end? Most, if not all, in such a situation would be ruled by gut instinct.

You cant take the fact somone shot in their back was running away. Perhps that was the only chance the vitim got to pul their gun was when they turned thier back.

Like I say, the law cannot cover this fully so the benefit shuold always be with the victim, and if that involvecd them killing an assailant then thats tough luck.

Koi
29-Jun-11, 22:06
I wouldn't chase the intruder down the street but I certainly would be slowing him/her down and preventing them from harming my family and stealing my stuff. I've always found it stupid when you hear cases of burglars suing the property owners for him/her falling through their glass table as the climbed through the window. Stupid place to have a table but he/she shouldn't have been breaking in the first place. Hadn't been there then no injuries to be had. Can't believe in cases like that the burglar won. Ridiculous.

ducati
29-Jun-11, 22:23
I wondered what you would make of this. So, if the penalty for breaking into a home is now death at the hands of an irate householder. What has the breaker in got to loose by be armed and prepared to do violence in his or her own defence?


Personally I think this statement was ill advised.

sandyr1
29-Jun-11, 22:34
It seems absurd to me that Ken Clarke has come out with this. The law has always been clear on this and Reasonable force has always been a legal level of violence to protect one's self and family in the home and has always encompassed the notion of any means of force necessary, even a gun if the need arose.

Quite frankly I feel this is an attempt by the tories to regain political 'tough on crime' heartland after their big U turn on sentencing.

You could be quite correct. No two cases are the same/ each has to be decided on it's own merit. So why initiate this?

gleeber
29-Jun-11, 22:36
I think the law is pretty clear and works well.

Bazeye
01-Jul-11, 01:36
A friend of mine whose brother is a lawyer told me that under the previous law, if you heard someone on your property and decided to investigate with a knife or whatever, it would indicate that any injury you inflicted was pre meditated. however if you investigated with an 18 inch mag-lite and beat the hell out of them you'd increase your chances of getting off with it by saying you just lashed out at them on the spur of the moment. Thats why he keeps a mag-lite under his bed and not a baseball bat or blade. Was he just winding me up or is this true, anyone know?
Btw one of these days I'm going to click onto Caitlin Moran and find out a bit about her. Not tonight though, my curiosity hasnt got the better of me yet.

sandyr1
01-Jul-11, 04:07
A friend of mine whose brother is a lawyer told me that under the previous law, if you heard someone on your property and decided to investigate with a knife or whatever, it would indicate that any injury you inflicted was pre meditated. however if you investigated with an 18 inch mag-lite and beat the hell out of them you'd increase your chances of getting off with it by saying you just lashed out at them on the spur of the moment. Thats why he keeps a mag-lite under his bed and not a baseball bat or blade. Was he just winding me up or is this true, anyone know?
Btw one of these days I'm going to click onto Caitlin Moran and find out a bit about her. Not tonight though, my curiosity hasnt got the better of me yet.

You do have a point, but the object of the exercise is not to 'Beat the Hell out of them', but to protect oneself! And a 'blade'....Gawd.......

tonkatojo
01-Jul-11, 08:40
What absolute rubbish.

If those rules applied then lynch mobs would be perfectly fine.

Yes use what force you need to to defend your home or person, but certainly the latter case you mention is vigilantism and should be deplored by all right thinking people.

On the brighter side I dare bet he won't commit burglary to any one else, unless of course the property is wheelchair friendly.

bekisman
01-Jul-11, 09:32
On the brighter side I dare bet he won't commit burglary to any one else, unless of course the property is wheelchair friendly.
She's only 84 but: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8799675.Pensioner_fights_off_burglar_with_walking_ stick/

NickInTheNorth
01-Jul-11, 10:12
A friend of mine whose brother is a lawyer told me that under the previous law, if you heard someone on your property and decided to investigate with a knife or whatever, it would indicate that any injury you inflicted was pre meditated. however if you investigated with an 18 inch mag-lite and beat the hell out of them you'd increase your chances of getting off with it by saying you just lashed out at them on the spur of the moment. Thats why he keeps a mag-lite under his bed and not a baseball bat or blade. Was he just winding me up or is this true, anyone know?

Not a wind up at all, absolutely true.

mi16
01-Jul-11, 10:15
Statements like this help no one in a debate. It is simple to test the truth of the matter.

Let's play hypotheticals.

In your home for some bizarre reason there is a nuclear bomb. You have the detonator. The nuke will take out the entire town / city in which you live. A burglar appears.

Do you press the button?

Clearly the answer is no, therefore you will not use whatever means are available. You will do what any right thinking person would do, take whatever action you can to stop the threat to you and yours, and when the threat is gone away you will stop your action.

So if the intruder flees you let him go, or when he is unconscious you stop hitting him with your baseball bat, or when he is dead you stop shooting/stabbing etc.

All perfectly fine and dandy, but when he flees you hunt him down and then kill him/her? Not fine at all, and you should be locked up for it.

Surely if the device would take out the entire town then the risk of being prosecuted would be the least of your worries?
No point in prosecuting a corpse is there?

rob1
01-Jul-11, 12:18
I have never had my house broken into and I hope that I never do. The closest I have come to it was when I got my wallet stolen - and I was angry and the thought that someone was now in possesion of it which was a present only fueled my anger.
What Tony Martin and the business man did was wrong for reasons already stated by someone else. They both used excessive force, but people react differently in the heat of the moment and these guys went too far, but I full understand why they did it. I think the law as it stands is fine - use resonable force.

At the end of the day we as a society need to address why individuals feel the need to burgle others and in many cases its drugs. but that is a whole other debate.

bekisman
01-Jul-11, 12:36
Many years ago in the '70's I experienced an unprovoked attack by a skinhead, fortunately I was able to defend myself and simply held him down by the neck until he was subdued - in the process tearing his tee-shirt.. I let him go and he walked off muttering.

No-one had witnessed this attack, apart from Mrs Beks who was with me.. So I thought about it and deliberately ripped my own shirt..

I went to the Police Station - I knew many of them there, and it soon transpired the weasel had run to the cop-shop and reported he'd been attacked.. The sergeant asked me the value of my own shirt and I said (I think) a fiver.. he said pity I had not said 15 or over as I'd have a case to do the thug..
Never saw him again...
Moral of the tale, have a back-up 'cos the criminal has - most of the time - more rights..

ducati
01-Jul-11, 16:46
therealducati, at Uni in Aberdeen on rag day had a bloke grab her collecting tin, you know the kind, on the end of quite a long string. anyway, she was holding the string handle and after a bit of a tug of war retained posession. This caused the tin (full of coins) to swing in an arc and without thinking she completed the arc connecting solidly with his temple.

Went down like he'd been pole axed. I don't really know the end of the story, I think she just continued on her merry way.

John Little
01-Jul-11, 16:48
therealducati, at Uni in Aberdeen on rag day had a bloke grab her collecting tin, you know the kind, on the end of quite a long string. anyway, she was holding the string handle and after a bit of a tug of war retained posession. This caused the tin (full of coins) to swing in an arc and without thinking she completed the arc connecting solidly with his temple.

Went down like he'd been pole axed. I don't really know the end of the story, I think she just continued on her merry way.


Watta woman! :eek:
Better than Maggie's handbag!

Bazeye
01-Jul-11, 17:52
A bit off thread but anyway. A while back my dughters friends sister had her mobile phone stolen in a pub but noticed it was missing straight away so she and her friends went and locked the door before anyone had left. They then went round the pub with the bouncers co operation and asked people if they would mind emptying their bags, pockets etc. While they were doing this one of her friends noticed one bloke put something down the back of his seat and sure enough it turned out to be her phone. As she retrieved the phone she headbutted the thief and bust his nose and knocked him off his feet back into his seat. The bouncers then threw the bloke out of the pub and barred him. Instant justice and no Police involved.

oldmarine
01-Jul-11, 18:19
Sorry, but the American example has not lead to reduction in violent crime. Quite to the contrary as statistics prove.

I agree with Ju. The crimes in Tucson have gone out of control. I believe it has become the shooting killing capitol of the country.

sandyr1
01-Jul-11, 21:30
We all have 'funny' stories....
Many years ago in London, a clippie(Bus Conductress) was collecting fares. She was holding her 'ticket machine' by the strap that went around her neck....
She approached a man and said 'fares please' to which he respond by pulling his coat back....exposing his person (The correct terminology is Unlawfully Did Expose his 'Person' with the intent to insult a female). Her reaction was rather quick and with the 5/6lb ticket machine, she hit him causing somewhat of a breakage...not the machine.
He was rushed to hospital with untold injuries and lots of blood around....
Now I don't think she was insulted, and he never complained!

rob1
01-Jul-11, 21:33
A bit off thread but anyway. A while back my dughters friends sister had her mobile phone stolen in a pub but noticed it was missing straight away so she and her friends went and locked the door before anyone had left. They then went round the pub with the bouncers co operation and asked people if they would mind emptying their bags, pockets etc. While they were doing this one of her friends noticed one bloke put something down the back of his seat and sure enough it turned out to be her phone. As she retrieved the phone she headbutted the thief and bust his nose and knocked him off his feet back into his seat. The bouncers then threw the bloke out of the pub and barred him. Instant justice and no Police involved.

It is not for the public to doll out justice. It is our responsability to follow and respect the law of the land and take due process when required. What this man did was wrong and should be punished. By locking the doors you illegally imprision everyone there (whether they supported the action or not). Even the police would find it hard to justify detaining a whole pub for a stolen phone. This lass busting the guy nose in not "instant justice", it is assalt inflicted by someone seaking revenge.

sandyr1
01-Jul-11, 21:37
It is not for the public to doll out justice. It is our responsability to follow and respect the law of the land and take due process when required. What this man did was wrong and should be punished. By locking the doors you illegally imprision everyone there (whether they supported the action or not). Even the police would find it hard to justify detaining a whole pub for a stolen phone. This lass busting the guy nose in not "instant justice", it is assalt inflicted by someone seaking revenge.

Yes you are correct, particularly in this day and age.....These situations were hazy many years ago....

Bazeye
01-Jul-11, 21:55
Even the police would find it hard to justify detaining a whole pub for a stolen phone.

You dont know the pub . The Police would have had to wait for a SWAT team before they entered it.

Walter Ego
01-Jul-11, 22:06
It is not for the public to doll out justice. It is our responsability to follow and respect the law of the land and take due process when required. What this man did was wrong and should be punished. By locking the doors you illegally imprision everyone there (whether they supported the action or not). Even the police would find it hard to justify detaining a whole pub for a stolen phone. This lass busting the guy nose in not "instant justice", it is assalt inflicted by someone seaking revenge.

I bet you're the life and soul of any party you attend...

sandyr1
01-Jul-11, 22:08
I hope you agree WE....Summary Justice is a thing of the past....Guess why?
'Cause the Victim will be the one in trouble....not the bad guy!

rob1
01-Jul-11, 22:16
I bet you're the life and soul of any party you attend...

Fortunatly the people I hang out with would agree with me.

weezer 316
02-Jul-11, 00:10
I think that quote is very misleading. I dont think anyone has ever said it would lead to a reduciton in crime! The higher levels of crime in the US as due to higher levels of poverty. We have no one as rich as bill gates, but equally we dont have some of the very worst of American Inner cities either.

And thats not guns fault.

sandyr1
02-Jul-11, 01:05
]I think that quote is very misleading[/B]. I dont think anyone has ever said it would lead to a reduciton in crime! The higher levels of crime in the US as due to higher levels of poverty. We have no one as rich as bill gates, but equally we dont have some of the very worst of American Inner cities either.

And thats not guns fault.

Pray tell of what u speak.....

Bazeye
02-Jul-11, 18:54
I bet you're the life and soul of any party you attend...

Until someone nicks his phone.

oldmarine
03-Jul-11, 01:21
Many years ago in the '70's I experienced an unprovoked attack by a skinhead, fortunately I was able to defend myself and simply held him down by the neck until he was subdued - in the process tearing his tee-shirt.. I let him go and he walked off muttering.

No-one had witnessed this attack, apart from Mrs Beks who was with me.. So I thought about it and deliberately ripped my own shirt..

I went to the Police Station - I knew many of them there, and it soon transpired the weasel had run to the cop-shop and reported he'd been attacked.. The sergeant asked me the value of my own shirt and I said (I think) a fiver.. he said pity I had not said 15 or over as I'd have a case to do the thug..
Never saw him again...
Moral of the tale, have a back-up 'cos the criminal has - most of the time - more rights..

Good comment with good results.