And a generation previous (Notting Hill in 1958).

Ever notice how these things tend to repeat on 20-30 year cycles. It seems like every generation has to repeat the mistakes of the previous one. We (USA) had race riots in 1943 (Detroit), the later half of 1960's, and 1992 (Los Angeles).

Getting back to the original topic, it's nice to see the broom mob instead of the vigelante mobs.

I guess, but these rioters declared war. The response here is a peaceful sweep up. In the long run, a more effective response is to hit the bully (rioters) square in the mouth. Else, the bully has his way whenever he wants. Also, the rioters targeted the wrong people! The anger, frustration or general rage should be directed toward the powers that be, rather their own.

As a practical matter, there should be a comprehensive approach that enables the homeowners and store owners to squash the nonsense. The homeowners and store owners should be allowed (and encouraged) to deploy an ample supply of non-lethal weapons (e.g., bear spray in large amounts) to quell rioters. The innocent should also be fitted with appropriate riot gear (e.g., gas masks) so they aren't affected. Of course, the rioters could wear their own gas masks. However, the government should then pass a law that prohibits a person from strolling around in public with full riot gear.

I'm just tossing around ideas. I don't like the idea of criminals knowing there will be a peaceful response every time their mob sets fire to my home or business.

I had to look up 'deadly force'. I assumed it was killing someone, and it isn't:

"An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person."

Then I had to look up 'serious bodily injury':

"... means bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty."

This is a lot of crap. So what's wrong with 'extreme physical pain'? 'Deadly force' should be killing someone, period. Okay, so we won't do that. But causing pain and crippling should be allowed. Some people have to learn the hard way. Not being able to run like a deer after committing a crime for the rest of your life seems better than getting your hair parted with an axe. Even if it isn't as attractive to the homeowner...

If someone breaks into your home, it seems to me that you SHOULD be able to create some 'serious bodily injury'. Folding their legs the wrong way, breaking teeth, seriously bruising the family jewels, breaking ribs, stomping hard on hands, etc, should indicate that you used a certain amount of reasonable restraint. You COULD have killed him, but you didn't. Esp if you had him duct-taped at the time.

We need to stop coddling criminals or we'll end up like Britain.

Sue

EXACTLY! And why is this considered bad? If an intruder decides to break into my house, I certainly hope that I have planned, prepared, and practiced what to do in such an encounter. Running around like a nitwit doing "impulsive acts" is about as stupid as it gets.

I was just at the rifle range today, actually practicing to shoot an attacker if it comes to that. I was even using targets with pictures of armed assailants on them. And an AK47. And next I practiced with .45's and 9mm's too. With high capacity magazines. I do not want an encounter with an intruder. I hope that never happens. But if it does - because of the ACTIONS OF THE INTRUDER - I plan to be ready to protect myself and my family.

"Impulsive acts" are considered GOOD??? What an idiotic way of thinking.

"Patrick Walsh, 56, has been told he will not face any further police action after detectives found there were no suspicious circumstances." (MenMedia).

All charges were dropped (BBC).

Did you even read the article? I wrote that if we chase a burglar down the street and attack them, then it's not self-defence. Which is what happened here: "...he and his brother gave chase to the gang. ... Two of them got away, but a third, Waled Salem, was caught by the Hussain brothers, who proceeded to beat him with a pole and a cricket bat while he lay on the ground."

Again this didn't reach court (BBC).

Tony Martin. He shot them in the back as they fled, with an illegal firearm. Not self-defence.

Every case cited above confirms what I wrote. If a house-holder kills a burglar, the police will investigate, and if it turns out to be self-defence then it will not be considered a crime. Please before mentioning other cases, do some research to see what the outcome was. (Also, don't trust reports from gutter press like The Daily Mail. They distort details in order to provoke an emotive response from their readers.)

I understand that a homeowner can get away with using deadly force on an intruder IF the implement and defense are improvised or unplanned.

The cases you cite where defenders were not found guilty covered, what appears to be, two cases of improvised weapons & one case of the intruder falling off a ledge while trying to escape the residence. Each case also resulted in the defender being charged with criminal offenses and only being spared a trial at the last moment after months of mental anguish, attorney's fees and damaged reputations.

My impression is that if the homeowner has a weapon that they plan to use to defend themselves with deadly force (in a case such as those you cite) they are very likely guilty of a criminal offense in the UK.

Am I off base?

Thank you for the corrections and updates to those cases, they're appreciated.



I did read that one. What I read was that the original home invaders walked free while the homeowner went to jail.

Should the homeowner have continued chasing and beating the guy after the original threat was stopped? No. Should he be the only one punished? Absolutely not.

I can't tell you what the homeowner was thinking, but it's entirely possible that he thought he had to not just stop THIS attack, but the NEXT attacks as well, since the police wouldn't.

+1

Well said. It really scares me that the US could end up like other countries that put higher value on protecting their criminals than their innocent citizens (or subjects, as the case may be). I don't think the US citizenry would allow this amount of government control and nonsense to come about, but it's still terrifying to even imagine what it would be like trying to live peacefully when forced into such a vulnerable position by your government.

I guess it depends on whether you see prison sentencing a means to an end to reform and rehabilitate as well as a form of punishment to keep criminals off the streets by restricting their freedoms. Well, there is one thing that is certainly true, you have a great deal more folks enrolled in the Government funded and privately operated Universities of Crime over in the US compared to the UK (which itself has a higher number of criminal training institutions bursting at the seams than the rest of Europe per head of population).

In the last year the number of robberies and house breaking in my local Police area of Tayside has seen a 45% increase (82 reported) for house breaking and a 13% increase in robberies (an increase in 5 reported).

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/article...reaking-up.html

But the overall crime rate has fallen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10432763

The major problem of shooting and beating to death a burglar is that even burglar's have friends and family, who might take their own form of justice against not only yourself but your family members as well. This leads to a spiral of revenge violence in local communities, which is perhaps why the murder rate in the USA is 6x that in the UK. (which is quite impressive considering all the folks that are already on death row and those banged up till they die and especially since the UK has done so well in catching up with the USA in the social economic income distribution gap). I believe that there are more folks in these US criminal university institutions that the rest of the world combined and make for a ready cheap pool of labour to compete and undercut even the commie Chinese worker for their corporate prison owners. Some even refer to it as the US Gulag system.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/article...ed-britain.html

Having convicted murderers not returning to jail after a home weekend visit might sound absolutely crazy and it certainly annoys the heck out of a lot of people surrounding the prison nearby but it doesn't mean that you cannot live peacefully nearby.

I think I'll stick with the criminal justice system we have here, despite the obvious anomalies and imperfections. Plus its a lot more cost efficient for the taxpayer as well keeping folks out of the criminal graduate eduction system. Do you know how much the US criminal justice system costs, it might very well surprise you.

And as US State and Federal budget cuts bite, there are certainly going to be a lot more graduate criminals out on the streets with no prospects in the near future thats for sure. Time to lock and load...

You can also defend yourself against violent attack in the UK, its called self defense, you just need to provide evidence you required it when using an acceptable level of force to stop and incapacitate the attack by the criminal. Its all based on a system of escalating violence, the aim is not to let the violence reach a level it spirals out of control ending in the death/GBH of the attacker or the victim of the crime, which is why even most of the criminals in the UK do not carry offensive weapons when house breaking or committing robberies.