Nice example of why we should be able to defend ourselves and our property without conviction, and however we see fit.
http://www.pjtv.com/v/3431
http://www.pjtv.com/v/3431
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
- Thread starter sidibear
- Start date
wibble111
needs to scratch the itch
I completely agree with you, its just a pity whichever party gets voted in wont have the balls to allow something like that to happen. How can a victim suddenly when faced with potentially a lethal threat inside their own home be turned into the guilty party when all they are doing is protecting themselves and their family.
Personally if i was ever in this sort of situation i'd use whatever is at hand to subdue them and risk the consequences after knowing full well i did it for my family, whereas sidi would probably just pull out his magnum and say 'feel lucky, punk!' and probably give them a heart attack lol.
Personally if i was ever in this sort of situation i'd use whatever is at hand to subdue them and risk the consequences after knowing full well i did it for my family, whereas sidi would probably just pull out his magnum and say 'feel lucky, punk!' and probably give them a heart attack lol.
ALPINE
Yes its diesel, now cry u lost
ALPINE
Yes its diesel, now cry u lost
funny this subject come up.... i had my door kicked in at our old house by 3 youths with tools at 2 o clock in the morning. what they didnt realise is i have been studdying martial arts for the last 16 years!! All 3 of them got arrested needless to say. but i must admit, the one that "fell down the stairs" i was expecting to get arrested for that. Shame this country is like that, like any man, i was just protecting my wife and kids. (and my big TV!!)
I also zip tied a chav to my garden railings once for being a little *****! (a4 section should remember that) its my car get ya own! tho i did get a fine for that as he pressed charges!
wibble111
needs to scratch the itch
Fair play fella, they got just what they deserved IMO. Just out of intrest what martial art do you study? I've been doing tae kwondo now for just over a year, only started because my sons done it since he was 3 1/2, when he went to the adult class after xmas last year i sat at the back getting really into it and thought sod it i'll have a go. My only wish now is that i'd started it earlier, i really like the sparring side of it and its made me feel a lot more confident should i ever feel the need for aggressive behaviour.
ALPINE
Yes its diesel, now cry u lost
The Maestro
S3 ~ MTM 330BHP ~ Milltek TBE
Oos
Nimpo Ninjitsu!This is the problem and one I've deliberated on over the years: what if?
In defence of my partner and daughter then yes, I'd do time for them if their lives were in danger where as I'm sure you could too (16/18 years training respectively mate) place them calmly to the floor without fuss or gutter-style brawling (so ungainly lol). It's when the b'stards bring knifes in (holding them like amateurs) that things get tricky lol.
It's harder for martial artists to get away with anything which would be in my mind if anything were to happen. So I think I'd waste my time with the 3 warnings crap, then do what was necessary - within reason. Shame though because in 'real' situations like that, all the moves you were taught not to do - save fatalities - seem to come to the front of one's mind lol.
I lived in Brazil for a few years - things were so much simpler and the police were happy for you to clear up the streets if it were to have ever come into your home! Those were the days lol.
Good stuff. My 16yo niece is English and Welsh champion, Tae Kwondo, and is off to the World Championships in Korea in July. She can certainly take care of herself!!!
Cheers,
Im my personal opinion, i feel that the moment the law of this land is broken then you forgoe its protection.Persons caught inside personal property should be treated as fair game including torture.But if that was allowed, then they would come fully armed...imean properly.However, the subject of self defence and reasonable force can only be argued in court, which means the householder getting locked up, interviewed etc.Can you imagine how plod must feel having to lock a decent mop up as well as the scumbags?No pleasure at all.An englishmans home is his castle.Woe betide anyone that i find in my house.And staz,if we ever kept guns in the house, then they would come armed too.Though i must admit i do have dreams of extermination!:busted_cop:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,775
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Points
- 113
wibble111
needs to scratch the itch
:icon_thumright: Thats fantastic, lets hope she has a good time in July and maybe bring home some silverware.
The Maestro
S3 ~ MTM 330BHP ~ Milltek TBE
Sort of - "Force with force"
To demonstrate self-defence three things make the legal determination:a) that you "justifiably" and "reasonably" fear immediate attack; b) that you had no way of avoiding being attacked and couldn't run away; and c) you must show equal counter-attack to the incoming threat. So if someone tries to attack you with a rolled up newspaper, you can't use anything deadlier than that to defend yourself.
Having said that, if your life or those of your family are reasonably deemed to be under threat then you 'can' defend yourself to the limit of preventing your/their death. Tony Martin - who shot those burglars when they broke into his farm house - he was convicted because he shot one of them in the back as they were leaving. So I'm sure he wished he'd shot em on the way in through the window lol.
Ali J - good luck to your niece in Korea. It'll be chicken and boiled potatoes on the run up for her then?! :icon_thumright:
I think you should be allowed to defend you and yours! I would hate my children to feel fear in their own home if someone broke in.
We also have a big dog, always a good deterant!
We also have a big dog, always a good deterant!
I do keep guns in the house, eleven of them to be exact, and around 2500 rounds of ammo, which the police know about and have no concerns. All securely locked in a home office approved gun safe with seperate storage for the ammo.
I think I know what you mean though, do I advocate the average law abiding citizen keeping a gun in the house?
Yes and no. I have been around a lot of people with guns, as have you. Your training like mine was quite different to the average gun owner, and in a time of crisis you will revert back to your training.
Most people in a hostile situation will think with panic and confusion, thats why defensive training is important. Most people can join a gun club and be trained on the safe use of a firearm and how to use it, trust me, self defence training is a whole different world. Lethal force is a final option not a first choice. One of my friends was in a shoot out and emptied a 17 round mag at the bad guy only hitting him once in the shoulder, from 5 yards. Normally on the range with his USP he can put 10 rounds in a 2" group at 10 yards, but when it came to a real life bad guy he reverted back to his lack of training and acted in panic and confusion.
My training is to put the first round in the shoulder and the second centre mass if needed, and I have trained at upto and including 35yards, and I can do it. I have done it with people throwing tennis balls at me, and a person either side of me shouting at me from a few inches away. When I shoot competitions now I wear an iPod playing music as I am so used to being distracted while shooting and shutting it off in my mind that I cannot reasonable compete in relative silence.
Big question time, could I do it if someone broke into my house? Legally no. By choice? possibly. By relying on my previous training? yes despite being a tad rusty, but I would feel really bad afterwards.
In the days of old a sheep thief was hung on the shepherds evidence, so after that the thieves used to kill the shepherd. All I am saying is that you should be able to defend yourself and your property as you see fit without fear of conviction. It should not be a case of you cannot fight back and that you should call the police if you feel your life is in danger. As the video clip shows, 999 (911) is basically government sponsored dial a prayer.
No offence Tom, the police do a great job under duress but you cannot be everywhere bad things are happening, and once its happened, all you can do is investigate it not prevent it or intervene.
I agree with the reasonable force idea but how often does it actually work in practise? All the bad guy has to do is turn is back on you infront of a witness and you cannot legally attack him because he is no longer a threat.
@The Maestro, Tony Martin refused to show remorse hence he was not released. His legal council tried to show remorse on his behalf by saying his client was sorry for what he did but Tony shouted out that no he f**king wasn't. The two people who broke into his premises were notorious thieves with previous, Tony had been burgled several times and complained to the police who couldn't man his property 24/7 so he took his own defensive action against the burglars. Anyone of a sane mind would feel remorse not pride.
Last edited:
The Maestro
S3 ~ MTM 330BHP ~ Milltek TBE
True, but post-facto. Tony Martin was charged because the gun shots were in the burglars back, not his front. Evidence thereafter etc etc etc. But yes, as you said, he didn't help his mitigation with his subsequent behaviour
With regards to defence, i'd do anything to protect my loved ones. Like Tom said, we can defend ourselves and use lethal force if need be but there are cases where some people have and gone to jail. I know that even with that in mind i'd still do damage; i'd rather go jail with my family alive rather than not do anything at all and living with the fact that i did nothing to protect. Is it true that if you put up a sign saying, "private property, tresspassing will result in retalliation" (or something along them lines) its then legal to do some 'justifiable' damage?
I agree with everyone on the right to self defence 100%. I don't have a family but even so, I would do whatever I could to ensure my house was the last that guy ever broke into. I'm very much against guns in the house though. There is a vast amount of evidence against keeping them from the states and I don't doubt for a second that it'd be just as bad over here too, especially in light of the stabbings last year. Many of us may be responsible people but we live in a society where we can't even trust people to keep their vicious dogs muzzled.
@ Staz, I totally agree about the responsibility aspect. With regards the USA Washington DC banned the carrying of handguns within the city limits and attack crime went up 35%. The CCW (carry concealed weapon) owners defied the law and open carried with the result that attack crime went back down again. Nothing worse for a bad guy than to find out your targetted victim is carrying.
Keeno
Spooly Spooly Boosty Boosty!
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 699
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 16
- Location
- West Sussex
- Website
- dj.time2cruise.co.uk
But then there's also the other side of that arguement, that if homeowners start arming themselves then so will theives and you end up with something of an arms race...
Did you know that occupier at home burglary has the lowest crime statistic in the USA?
Do you want to know why that is? Its because it stands a good chance that the homeowner is armed.
There is no other side of the argument, bad guys don't pay attention to the law and are usually already armed. Its not about armed possesion escalation, its about being able to strike back. If the law was changed so you could freely use as much force as you want without fear of prosecution then it stands a good chance of the crime rate dropping as the criminal will know that he may well get injured or even worse.
Do you want to know why that is? Its because it stands a good chance that the homeowner is armed.
There is no other side of the argument, bad guys don't pay attention to the law and are usually already armed. Its not about armed possesion escalation, its about being able to strike back. If the law was changed so you could freely use as much force as you want without fear of prosecution then it stands a good chance of the crime rate dropping as the criminal will know that he may well get injured or even worse.
Of course it's about escalation! If you allow people to keep guns in their homes there WILL be an increase in armed robberies and there WILL be an increase in gun related deaths and injuries.
HotboxDeluxe
automatic
I don't completely follow you there Staz...agreed there would be an increase in gun related deaths and injuries - but it would mostly be burglars and muggers with holes in them; no biggy :icon_thumright:
Keeno
Spooly Spooly Boosty Boosty!
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 699
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 16
- Location
- West Sussex
- Website
- dj.time2cruise.co.uk
Just to play devli's advocate - potentially there'll also be an increase in Joe Public buying it as well...
Again it's the escalation thing. Mr Homeowner's probably got a Colt Special, so I'll go barrelling in with a Remington pump-action...
Also gonna throw this one into the ring - gang related deaths. Yes we have them in britain, mostly with knives. America with it's more relaxed gun laws has far more. Can't perform a drive-by with a knife...
No chance. Burglar now needs to be armed just in case the homeowner is but the burglar has the element of surprise, ergo most injuries/deaths will be the innocent ones.
Whereabouts did this turn into UK homeowners having guns to protect themselves? The point was to be able to protect yourself without relying on police intervention because by the time the police arrive you may well be another statistic with a chalk outline.
Couple of points, your average homeowner does not posess a firearm, if he does it would be securely locked away with the ammo secured in a different safe. Therefore, if the homeowner used a firearm to protect themselves it would come under premeditated murder, because several steps were taken to use the firearm and not a spur of the moment thing. If the gun was just lying around handy on the off chance then it wasn't secured in accordance with the owners firearms license and he will lose his license and face arrest. (Perhaps one of our friends in the job could confirm this).
Another point, gangs in the USA shoot each other with illegal firearms, legally held firearm holders don't tend to shoot at each other.
Yes, we have gang killings in the UK, and once again, illegal firearms are used.
Bad guy breaking into your house to steal stuff will most likely be armed with something, screwdriver, hammer, knife. What is now your option to defend yourself? Oh no, best not, you don't want it to escalate now do you.
Trust me, when the time comes to defend yourself you will find a way and means to do it.
So no, its not about escalation, its about the ability to defend yourself and your property by whatever means neccessary.
Couple of points, your average homeowner does not posess a firearm, if he does it would be securely locked away with the ammo secured in a different safe. Therefore, if the homeowner used a firearm to protect themselves it would come under premeditated murder, because several steps were taken to use the firearm and not a spur of the moment thing. If the gun was just lying around handy on the off chance then it wasn't secured in accordance with the owners firearms license and he will lose his license and face arrest. (Perhaps one of our friends in the job could confirm this).
Another point, gangs in the USA shoot each other with illegal firearms, legally held firearm holders don't tend to shoot at each other.
Yes, we have gang killings in the UK, and once again, illegal firearms are used.
Bad guy breaking into your house to steal stuff will most likely be armed with something, screwdriver, hammer, knife. What is now your option to defend yourself? Oh no, best not, you don't want it to escalate now do you.
Trust me, when the time comes to defend yourself you will find a way and means to do it.
So no, its not about escalation, its about the ability to defend yourself and your property by whatever means neccessary.
I think it was around about the time when you posted the video of someone protecting them self using a gun.
As I said before I'm fully on side with protecting yourself and your family using self defence, if that means you end up killing someone because you used whatever weapon you could find then so be it. What I'm totally against is the idea of people carrying weapons or keeping them in the home for protection (sports are a completely different thing). If the would-be burglar survives the senario in the video there's a chance he'll never do it again, but if he doesn't stop do you really think the next time he tries it he's not going to be carrying a gun himself??
Originally I thought you had understood where I was coming from when I referred to evidence from the USA. I was talking about the many cases of accidental deaths and kids going on rampages in schools. Those things don't happen here because firearms are not so easily accessible. That's how it should remain.
Keeno
Spooly Spooly Boosty Boosty!
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 699
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 16
- Location
- West Sussex
- Website
- dj.time2cruise.co.uk
Not entirely true - Dunblane for example.
Although I do fully agree with the sentiment of firearms remaining fairly inaccessible to a majority of the population. Yes, most criminals will probably be put off by the fact they could get their brains blown out the back of their heads whilst going after the cash under some old dear's mattress but there's always the dangerous minority that will see it as a challenge...
Also, the potential for fatal accidents is massively incrreased. Again, most will be sensible and use and store them correctly, but there will always be the odd idiot like this bloke who loose rounds off into bits of woodland and nail some poor kid out playing with his mates.
Just a case of the minority ruining it for the majority so to speak.
Sidibear - just out of interest, what is it you do for a living? Not many people I know have comprehensive firearms training and keep 11 weapons in the house!
@Staz, you missed the point of the video. Its about not relying on the police to save you in a life or death situation as many liberals think you should do. I knew where you were coming from and I totally agree that firearms should not be easily accessable. And even if they were, its one thing to shoot at paper targets, its a whole different thing to shoot at someone living regardless of their intentions. You have been in the forces, you know what I mean with that. Playing on the range with the electronic targets is nothing like knowing its for real and the target is living, and your decision will end their life.
Accidents happen, deaths are caused but the inanimate object that causes it has a human behind it, and it matters not if its a gun, a knife or a stick with a nail in it. American culture is vastly different to the UK and cannot be used as a comparison.
Don't you think though that if the bad guys are carrying a weapon of some sort that you should also have the choice to meet them equally?
@Keeno, read the Cullen report if you want to know more about Dunblane, for instance, Thomas Hamiltons firearms officer said he should not have a gun but his manager over ruled him. Hamilton was a known paedophile and had connections with high ranking police officials and also several members of parliament, one of which is the current prime minister. Enough info is available but the really juicy stuff has a 100 year publication ban on it.
I used to work as a tactical firearms instructor but have now retired due to ill health. I currently compete on a national level in several shooting disciplines. My profession now is a project manager in the construction industry.
Accidents happen, deaths are caused but the inanimate object that causes it has a human behind it, and it matters not if its a gun, a knife or a stick with a nail in it. American culture is vastly different to the UK and cannot be used as a comparison.
Don't you think though that if the bad guys are carrying a weapon of some sort that you should also have the choice to meet them equally?
@Keeno, read the Cullen report if you want to know more about Dunblane, for instance, Thomas Hamiltons firearms officer said he should not have a gun but his manager over ruled him. Hamilton was a known paedophile and had connections with high ranking police officials and also several members of parliament, one of which is the current prime minister. Enough info is available but the really juicy stuff has a 100 year publication ban on it.
I used to work as a tactical firearms instructor but have now retired due to ill health. I currently compete on a national level in several shooting disciplines. My profession now is a project manager in the construction industry.
Keeno
Spooly Spooly Boosty Boosty!
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 699
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 16
- Location
- West Sussex
- Website
- dj.time2cruise.co.uk
May well do that. :icon_thumright:
I was merely using it to demonstrate that it does happen in the UK, I know nothing more than it was in a primary school in Scotland...
The 100 year publication ban pretty much just tells everyone who to pin the inciminating evidence on, just not what it is exactly. Although I'd imagine anyone with a reasonable imtelligence would be able to have a stab at it?
The Maestro
S3 ~ MTM 330BHP ~ Milltek TBE
Well, we're a long way off in this Country from being able to 'easily' being able to acquire a gun licence for our personal protection here in the UK - though I wouldn't rule out it happening one day. If, when that day comes we'll be in the same boat as certainly America at best, and most definitely Brazil at worsed. I've lived in both - my residency status in the USA is permanent - and in the State of Florida I have a gun licence. When I lived in Brazil (1993-1996) I lived in very nice gated community where, yes, I owned a gun without a licence. Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with the criminal sociology of Brazil (specifically Sao Paulo and Rio) then imagine this - and I ain't joking: 6 years old street kids are often armed!!! Their philosophy being "it's easier to shoot someone and take their Nike's than have a confrontational conversation and ask for them!" Fact - and it's largely why the police death-gangs kicked off in Rio! Anyway ...
In Brazil I had a gun, knowing full well that if a robber managed to over-power the community's security and venture our avenues to our houses, they'd surely be armed, intent to kill and rob as they knew damn well the home-owners had guns - and most of them had magnums. Hence, anyone entering your property uninvited could easily, expectedly and justifiably be shot at - wounded or killed. The police would side with you, the home owner, and be grateful you did a bit of work on their behalf. And I tell you this guys, although I do not relish the idea of the UK becoming anything like that, at least there was a ****** clear distinction in the situation, you knew what to expect and what you could do to deal with it. Basically, you could do what you should do when a tosser is intent on messing with your home, family and your life. It's called "Assumed Risk" where here, in the UK, it doesn't extend that a burglar should expect to get hurt/shot/maimed by a home owner when they burglaries it; whereas in a Country like Brazil it does. And damn right too.
Let's see what happens when if Conservatives get in if they really meant what they said.
In Brazil I had a gun, knowing full well that if a robber managed to over-power the community's security and venture our avenues to our houses, they'd surely be armed, intent to kill and rob as they knew damn well the home-owners had guns - and most of them had magnums. Hence, anyone entering your property uninvited could easily, expectedly and justifiably be shot at - wounded or killed. The police would side with you, the home owner, and be grateful you did a bit of work on their behalf. And I tell you this guys, although I do not relish the idea of the UK becoming anything like that, at least there was a ****** clear distinction in the situation, you knew what to expect and what you could do to deal with it. Basically, you could do what you should do when a tosser is intent on messing with your home, family and your life. It's called "Assumed Risk" where here, in the UK, it doesn't extend that a burglar should expect to get hurt/shot/maimed by a home owner when they burglaries it; whereas in a Country like Brazil it does. And damn right too.
Let's see what happens when if Conservatives get in if they really meant what they said.
Last edited:
Audijarvis
Registered User
I was out for a beer awhile back and got talking to some low life's who spoke freely about their house breaking exploits
They said that many criminals are now switching on the deep fat fryer the minuet they get into a property.
If you disturb them they throw it on you.
Not much you can do to defend yourself against that
They said that many criminals are now switching on the deep fat fryer the minuet they get into a property.
If you disturb them they throw it on you.
Not much you can do to defend yourself against that
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,775
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Points
- 113
I can just imagine a burglar coming up the stairs with a sizzling deep fay fryer being careful not to spill it,I haven't got one so would they switch the george foreman grill on and pat me with it ?
Dazmo
Registered User
Ok fair point, but wasn't the major change in UK firearm possession a direct response to what happened?
No I understood the point mate, but the example is a woman using a gun and that's what people, especially young people, will remember.
