I think those are old news but just now i read how bizarre and ridiculous are some laws in England when it comes to one's right of defending him/herself.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 26n2-1.pdf

Some examples from the article:

"A homeowner who discovered two robbers
in his home held them with a toy gun
while he telephoned the police. When the
police arrived they arrested the two men, and
also the homeowner, who was charged with
putting someone in fear with a toy gun."


"An elderly woman who scared off a gang of youths
by firing a cap pistol was charged with the
same offense. The government is now planning
to make toy guns illegal."


"The BBC offers this advice for anyone
in Britain who is attacked on the street:
You are permitted to protect yourself with
a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should
shout “Call the Police” rather than “Help.”
Bystanders are not to help. They have been
taught to leave such matters to the professionals.
If you manage to knock your
attacker down, you must not hit him again
or you risk being charged with assault."


"In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old farmer
living alone in a dilapidated house, woke to
the sound of shattering glass as two burglars
broke in. Martin had been robbed six
times before, but like 70 percent of rural
English villages, his had no police presence.
He crept downstairs in the dark and shot at
the burglars, killing one and wounding the
second. Both had numerous prior convictions.
Martin was sentenced to life in prison
for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding
the second, and 12 months for owning
an unregistered shotgun. The prosecutor
claimed Martin had lain in wait, then caught
the burglars “like rats in a trap.”
The wounded burglar was released after
serving 18 months of a three-year sentence.
He then sued Martin for injury to his leg,
claiming it prevented him from working
and interfered with his martial arts training
and sex life. He was awarded £5,000
of taxpayer money to prosecute the suit.
Martin’s sentence was reduced to five years
on a finding that he had had an abusive childhood,
but he was denied parole because he
had expressed no remorse for killing “one so
young” and posed a danger to other burglars."




I mean...all those are really WTF?! cases.

I think it's probably just routine procedure to arrest someone pointing a toy gun at someone else, doesn't mean they were condemned in the end.

as for Tony Martin, he shot the kid he killed in the back, not exactly self defence!

i think it's also very comical that his sentence was then reduced to 5 yrs b/c of his abusive childhood...
to the whole thing.

also, i don't understand this:
"posed a danger to other burglars"

If two guys invade break into your house, im sure you will say hi and make them look at you before you incapacitate instead of surprising them even if you are in numerical disadvantage because self-defense is a really hard thing to understand and you dont want people to misinterpret you as some blood thirsty killer who likes to shot at poor buglars with extensive criminal profile.

Such a nice guy.

In Belgium we set someone free who shot a burglar 3 times in the back. It was like the 4th time they robbed his jewelry store in a few months.

Had the kid he killed broken into his house in the middle of the night?

not an excuse to shoot him in the back, he could have just scared him off.
the redneck wanted blood.

wow.

Scary isnt it?
I dont know anything about this case beyond what i read in this thread... however, it does specify "in the dark"... Which perhaps meant he didnt know what direction the burglars were facing.

Because shooting someone invading your home means you are blood thirsty.

There is no excuse to shoot a child in the back as he is running away. I actually find it bizarre that our trans-atlantic cousins think its ok to shoot intruders. Do you not think that could be part of the reason why gun crime is so prevalent in the us? If both householders and crimnals are armed then surely its a recipy for disaster?

Was he running away from the house?

"More than half of English burglaries are “hot burglaries”
(someone is at home), while in America, where bur-
glars admit to fearing armed homeowners
more than the police, only 13 percent are “hot
burglaries.”

At least in the USA the burglars seem to avoid direct contact and consequently violence more than the british burglars since they have more "respect" for house owners.

well gun crime has been pretty prevalent even in areas with lots of gun control(Washington DC for example) so even if the criminals are armed, the majority of home owners likely aren't armed, even when criminals are.
Also, considering "as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year (due to the victim's usage of a gun, either firing it or simply wielding it) in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection," I don't think you can automatically say guns are the root of all evil. Poverty causes a lot more gun crime than the simple availability of guns themselves ever did.

This is perhaps far too bizarre to actually be true. I cannot believe that you would not want to defend your home and family against intruders looking to rob, rape, or kill you. That is not only incredibly cowardly on your part, it is utterly foolish. You are wantonly endangering yourself and your family by taking such a ridiculous stance. It is sad indeed to see a nation so completely cowed under by its own government. Very sad.

source?
the Telegraph editorial you got that from doesn't quote source., and I can't find anything relating to it in the home office statistics.
actually found this from the same time as the editorial that says "With four out of five burglaries committed while there’s no-one at home,"..and they quote their source..
the latest crime statistics record less than one percent of robberies as aggravated robbery, i.e. involving a weapon (most likely knife here).

You are just plain stupid.

Their desire to rob and kill you and your desire for your family to be safe are just differences of opinion. You need to respect their opinions.

British cop: You are arrested for pointing a toy gun on those two robbers!

House owner: But they broke into my house, I was just defending my property. And I actually fooled them with a harmless object.

British cop: But they have feelings, you scared them by making them believe they could face danger while breaking into someone house. Thats not nice, you know.

More proof the British are stupid? I think so. I've heard of criminal's rights but goddamn, you people want everyone to be an easy target. Fucking idiots...

Also, my state (Ohio) just passed a law that allows you to shoot criminals who break into your house with no legal reprocussions. I think that makes way more sense than getting a manslaughter charge for defending yourself and your property.