Londoners take to streets to clean up

http://news.yahoo.com/londoners-strike-back-operation-riot-clean-155127609.html

Looking at the riots themselves (not the clean-up) from the point of view of self-defense/survival, what's the recommended behavior? Suppose you live in an affected area and the crowd decides to burn your car/shop/house. Is it a good idea to use firearms for self-defense, or is it better to flee? Keep in mind that many insurance policies have exclusions for riots, so if they burn down your house, it may be difficult to recover.

My understanding is that in most criminal codes in the USA, if not all, defense of property does not justify lethal force. You want to be sure you are in fear of your life (or those of your loved ones).

The riots in the past few days in London town are actually quite nostalgic, takes me back a few years to the days of Thatcherism before the City of London big bang, de-industrialisation and the rise of the Yuppie (remember them).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCw9_avTlYs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2TYKmQc0L4

not forgetting of course;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcizZebcaU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSKc5sNNuOc

I'm wondering how that would work in a situation like this. There is a crowd outside my door and they want to burn down my house. Clearly I have reasons to fear for my life if I stay inside the house. I'm also not sure I'd be that comfortable to leave the house, given that there is a hostile uncontrolled crowd outside. I don't have their written guarantee not to harm me, nor would I trust one even if I had it. Is this reason enough to use lethal force, are there precedents?

I'm also interested in just the tactical viewpoint. Suppose legal issues are not a concern. Is it wise to fire at a crowd, are they likely to disperse or are they likely to become more violent?

It's a matter of degree. Most states have adopted the Castle Doctrine from English common law. A person may use deadly force to defend their home, car, tent etc. from an intruder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Why does it have to come down to everyone wanting to shoot each other in a riot? The London riots have shown that a full scale riots can take place without it turning into a mass casualty event. Personal possessions and property can be replaced (that's why there are insurance companies), but people full of bullet holes are somewhat more difficult to replace and the cost to the UK National Health Service patching up the wounded would also be quite high.

I really can't imagine what is going to happen when the same austerity measures take hold in the US and inevitable rioting breaks out across all the cities throughout the USA.

I definitely don't want to shoot anyone in a riot. But I might be forced to if I feared for my safety and shooting the rioters were an effective measure. So that's what I'm trying to find out -- is it an effective measure, or is it likely to do more harm than good.


It's certainly nice that so far there have been relatively few casualties; however, if my and my family's safety were at stake, I would prefer to have somewhat more solid guarantees. Somehow relying on the goodwill of people who are burning houses seems a little less that totally satisfactory to me.


That's not exactly true; many insurance companies have provisions that deny coverage in case of widespread disturbances (such as riots, war, etc.).


Actually, there have been riots in the US in the past, and I was hoping someone would be able to mention which strategies worked and how legal issues were settled.

In most US states the large disparity of force between an angry mob and a single man with a rifle would be easily understood by a court. In some US states you can use deadly force to defend against arson, and as far as I know all US states permit the use of deadly force to defend against arson of an occupied structure. Note that I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.



I'd be trying to evaluate the mob and evaluate my chances of survival either way. The weather could have a big impact if the mob is taking away my only shelter. I might feel as though I had no choice (one way or the other), if my children were with me.

Where I live, if the police aren't taking care of business the best hope I'd have is to know that the trouble was coming and work with my neighbors to defend our neighborhood.

I don't think it's going to play out that way. I'm not promising "no riots in the US" for any period of time, but I seriously doubt that we'll have widespread riots.

If it does, though, you should expect property owners to use deadly force to defend their families and their livelihoods. In that (extremely unlikely, IMO) case, riots will be very short-lived in parts of the US where gun ownership isn't heavily restricted.

This issue is far beyond merely defense of property. I have vulnerable family members in my house. If I have an angry mob outside that is in the process of committing arson and/or other mass violence, that is an imminent threat to the lives of my family. The rioters can go elsewhere, but I can't move my home.

I'll turn on the video recorders and audio recorders. I'll attempt to get as much evidence recorded. Anyway, my state does have a form of the Castle Doctrine. There is no retreat requirement in my state. I'll make a judgment call in the moment. If the lives of my family are in imminent danger, there will not be any pontificating about the laws of self-defense. The lawyers will be there afterward to do all the pontificating. My job is to protect my family.

Nostalgic? Are you sure you used the correct vocabulary word there? You have a wistful desire to return to the happiness of those riots?

I've been out at Penn State University during two student led riots. PA is a state where concealed carry is legal (and some what prolific) and is now a caste doctrine state (meaning you have no legal requirement to retreat when life or property is at risk). Despite that, firearms never once came into it.

Rather, the police are pretty good at identifying and arresting the real trouble makers of the group before they really get out of hand. From what I saw, their tactic is basically to saturate the area with police, grab the major trouble makers, and use OC spray when necessary for protection. They more or less get right into the middle of the riot. This seems a bit different than what I've seen on tv of UK riot control, where they prefer to stand off a bit more.

Also interesting, was their significant use of horses and dogs. K9 officers and rows of horse mounted officers were used to essentially contain the crowd in an area where the least amount of damage would be created. They basically pushed the crowd where they wanted it and pulled out the real troublemakers.

They were surprisingly efficient at it as well. I saw a shop window get broken and, within a minute or two, there were more cops outside the window than rioters.

It would be nice to have a non-lethal option in such a situation available so that resort to lethal force could be avoided. Unfortunately, most of these options are only available to police agencies. However, it seems to me that a large 16 oz. can of bear spray might generate enough widespread discomfort to convince some of the instigators to go burn down someone else's property. Of course, it could generate the opposite result making lethal force necessary. From a legal point of view, it seems like an attempt to use non-lethal force would go a long way toward absolving the homeowner from liability.

I live in London, fairly near one of the most affected areas.
Firearms are not an option for the law abiding.
I know of places from where an illegal gun could be obtained, but would not take the chance.
The police take illegal firearms very seriously indeed.

I have however armed myself with a crossbow, which I believe to be legal to posses.
Carrying it in the street would not be allowed, but for home defence I might be tempted.

In the US there is the example of Korean shopkeepers defending their businesses from the Rodney King rioters (I think that was the event) using AR-15 so-called "assault rifles" from the rooftops.

They were successful until the police came and made them give up their guns and leave.

Then their unguarded shops were burned.

Col. Jeff Cooper suggested that sniping the instigators with .22LR ammo would be a way of taking the steam out of the crowd. (arguing that shooting them with a .22 will shut them down and give enough time to get them to hospital to save their lives)

Seems to me that preserving the lives of firebombing rioters is over rated.

It depends.

If you use a non-lethal force option and then end up using deadly force, you might face the accusation that it wasn't a deadly force situation at all. After all, you wouldn't have used a non-lethal option in that case.

Statute and case-law vary state by state, and different prosecutors have different attitudes. Consult a competent attorney in your jurisdiction.

Speaking tactically, unless you have a lot of irritant gas that you can deploy quickly, I don't think you'd be able to deter a large angry mob that way.

But is this an angry mob, or a mob taking advantage while thinking this is fun and no one can touch us?
Interesting interview with someone in London. The first few minutes he speaks about the riots then switches to gold & silver.

Lots of reasons I suspect for why?, from not being an ideal consumer (left economically on the sidelines) to many not getting a decent sh*g (lack of bling, bling as portrayed in 50 Cent Gangsta rap music videos and the like). This can be observed in any nightclub with the iPhone mating ritual displays. iPhones and bling are expensive and tend to be out off the reach of the economically deprived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM (you will need a couple of hours free time to get an idea of the comprehensive manipulation of society through electronic media and propaganda i.e. Public relations)

Constantly complaining from the Politicians this side of the Atlantic that the rioting is just nothing short of rampant criminal behavior by the so called 'criminal classes' is just a cop out (excuse the pun). Again this is just public relations for their own failures and incompetence. Sometimes its a little difficult to know if they are talking about socially pointless banksters or socially irresponsible teenage looters or arsonists.

Ditto that.

Of course its easy to change the hypothetical to make any point you want, but I can't think of a single situation where someone who used non-lethal force that did not end the threat could be twisted into an argument that lethal force was not necessary. Only the opposite could be true, it fully negates the argument that less than lethal force was necessary.



Speaking tactically, I can tell you have never used large bear spray unit. It deploys long and large. The biggest problem is not contaminating yourself.

YMMV.

What about birdshot? Seems like it could be painful and scary, but unlikely to kill a human.

Birdshot can be plenty lethal, especially under say 20 feet from the muzzle.

I'm not an attorney, but an attorney versed in this area of law gave me this warning. Again, it depends, and you should consult a competent attorney for your jurisdiction.



I'm well aware of how large bear sprays work. You may have noticed that when the cops use irritant gas to disperse rioters, they tend to use lots more than even a large OC spray canister contains.

Do you know whether they were charged eventually? Tried wikipedia and google, but didn't find much.

From the tactical viewpoint, this example would suggest that firing at the crowd wasn't that effective. It seems the crowd didn't disperse and just waited for them to leave. Of course, it seems they didn't kill anyone (just warning shots in the air).

Never, ever, point a gun at a person unless you are legally and morally justified in using deadly force.

Never, ever, think that pointing a gun with a less-lethal round in it at a person isn't deadly force.

The UK is having these widespread riots because of the ingrained belief that using non-lethal force on violent criminals is always appropriate. Violent criminals are definitely endorsing that concept. So, it can't be good.

After everybody's on board with this idea of non-lethal force, then there will be another movement for not allowing homeowners to use force at all. I'm sure criminals would agree to return a percentage of their takings just to turn that concept into law.

Unfortunately, the UK may already be there. Based on the home invasion cases I've read, the UK justice system fights back pretty hard against homeowners who have the audacity to protect themselves from home invaders, robbers, murderers and rapists. The U.S. needs to get out of NATO immediately before we catch this Nanny State disease like herpes.

What about if I am justified in using deadly force, but want to give them a last chance? I understand that legally birdshot is still deadly force, and I understand that it can actually kill a person. But I also understand that it's less likely to kill than, say, buckshot. It seems pretty similar to aiming a handgun at the torso rather than the head -- it's still deadly force and it can still kill, but less likely and incapacitating the attacker may be OK in some situations.

If you're legally and morally justified in using deadly force, then you should work to stop the threat as quickly as possible. Buck shot is much more likely to incapacitate an attacker than bird shot.



That's not at all the reasoning. We train people to shoot for the torso because it's bigger and is likely to be moving less. You're more likely to make incapacitating hits under stress when shooting at the upper torso.

That's not what I meant though, I should have picked a different example to avoid this confusion. Say the accuracy isn't an issue at all, you are a good shot, you hold well under stress and you know you probably will hit exactly where you aim. Even in this case, I don't think you are obligated to aim for the head or even the torso. You may choose to aim for arms or legs if you wanted to give the attacker one more chance to stop.

Accuracy under stress is always an issue, unless, perhaps, you're a special forces operator.

But let's follow your hypothesis and say that a Genie granted my wish to always hit exactly what I'm trying to shoot at. In a deadly force confrontation, there is an attacker who is going to kill or seriously injure me or my loved ones if I don't stop him. You better believe that if (God forbid) I'm ever in that position, I'm going to try to stop the threat as quickly as possible.

I respectfully submit that anyone who isn't ready to do that should not own firearms for self defense.

We should get back onto topic. I will be pleased to continue this conversation in a new thread or via PM if you prefer.

Technically they are shooting to stop the threat, they are not shooting to necessarily kill the threat. The threat may end up dead, but the goal is to stop, not kill.

I would disagree. There are major socio-economic issues in the UK that have gone unresolved for many years. Add lots of young people with no jobs and you've got your riot. Things like this don't just happen out of the blue.

As for defending your home from rioters goes, pepper spray, bear spray, a restaurant sized jar of jalapenos in a garden sprayer , whatever works I suppose.

chaosmagnet and NightHiker, thanks, it was a useful discussion (for me at least).


Thank you!

Fortunately, not necessary. Four years working as a deputy sheriff to pay for law school eventually paid off.



The CS canisters (predecessor to current pepper spray) I was issued were no bigger than the bear spray canisters I described earlier. You might say I noticed, I had a few in the trunk of my patrol car.

The London criminals certainly know how to riot properly, don't they?


I imagine there will be a lot less burning homes and buildings, and a lot less innocent people trembling in fear waiting for the authorities to show up.

You act as if people coming to burn your house down is to be expected, and something to be tolerated. Wouldn't want to harm them while they're lighting their firebombs, now would we?

A woman who is living in England (Birmingham, I think) was talking via phone to a news guy on KOMO radio (Seattle). She is someone known to the news guy, whatever recommendation that confers, if any.

She said that it isn't economics, it isn't race, it's for fun-- the rioters are 'going shopping' and destroying whatever they can. Some of the violence and theft are being perpetuated by kids as young as nine years old. They're setting fire to shops where they know people are living above. In my book, that's attempted murder.

With the elimination of most of the guns in England, the rioters know that if most people try to fight back it is likely going to have to be hand-to-hand combat. Which side is likely to have the most experience?

I was reading about bear spray, and the can only lasts about 7 seconds. I think you would need a good supply of bear spray, or only a small supply of rioters.

On the subject of intent to stop, not kill (mostly), how about loading shotgun shells with rock salt?

Sue

The intent is to to stop the bad guy RIGHT NOW, so he cannot continue to do whatever is causing you to fear for your life.

My shotgun ammo is 00 Buck -- that is what I will use in my meager attempt to stop a bad guy in my home. Back-up is a .45 pistol.

Yes, there's no room to argue around those points.

+1 A person who takes up arms must seriously commit mentally to use of deadly force and accept the responsibility of the fact that they may end someone's life. Anyone may falter (or commit) in the moment of truth, but if you aren't mentally prepared prior to the fact, you should not take up the responsibility. There is just no half-way to it.

My .02

C. Rowe

Pretty much useless.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm


I've tried rock salt loads and it seems like it would be roughly as effective as throwing handfuls of rock salt at them. It just doesn't have enough mass to penetrate most clothing at any reasonable distance.

How about a mustard gas (chlorine gas) deterrent?

Easy to make and deploy, two thin-walled glass jars with lids, one small enough to fit inside the other. Fill one with ammonia, the other with household bleach. Throw between you and advancing mob and retreat inside your home.

Pete

If it came to using mustard gas, I think the jury (if it came to that) would understand firearms more in your favor (in the US anyway).

Self-defense is always potentially TWO fights - the one you hope to survive and the one in court afterwards.

Trouble is, every perpetrator is "a good boy who was just about to get his life straightened out" when described in court. Using chemical weapons outlawed for war since WWI against the little angel doesn't look good.

(Even though I heartily agree with the concept!)

** ammonia/chlorine binary area weapons ** Like it
Would the broken glass be considered an edged weapon?

Under the Geneva convention the uses of chemical weapons is out lawed even against rioters who want to rape, pillage and murder.

Instead how about a Blue Peter Claymore (easier to make than a Tracy Island) . All you need is some Hexamine Tablets, some nitric acid, some plasticine and some ball bearings etc.

What about visual deterrents? I bet Victor Kreuger has never been bothered by rioters.

Here is a place to start;

http://www.jelldragon.com/viking_helmets.htm

And playing some bag pipe music should also intimidate the rioters....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUs5AfrNjc

I could be wrong; since I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me the Geneva Convention would not apply to a citizen protecting their home from a mob. It is my limited understanding it applies to treatment and rules of engagement for uniformed military combatants.

Also, is not CS gas and pepper spray a type of chemical deterrent/weapon?

Pete

The attorney that mentioned this issue was teaching a CCW class. I can't evaluate his competence. Are there no jurisdictions in the US where this could cause an issue?



I've never been in law enforcement. Everything I know about crowd control I've learned from watching the news. How many canisters would you need to disperse a large angry mob?

Sorry, my mistake, I thought the discussion in the thread was talking about general warfare, civil war or insurrection and not just criminal civil disturbance. It would appear that there is a fine line between what appears to be happening in England and say Libya and Syria as being portrayed by the media.

It was my pleasure. Welcome to ETS!

I'm sure you meant the Hague Convention of 1899. Unless I'm mistaken, Geneva does not concern itself with Chemical Weapons.

Nice list, but you've forgotten about Richard Todd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUs5AfrNjc

Interesting little fact is that Richard Todd was actually playing himself at Pegasus Bridge.

Nah, you don't need that crowd.

Just send Chuck Norris.

After all, he's so tough the boogeyman checks underneath his bed to make sure Chuck Norris isn't hiding under there :-)

Don't send Chuck Norris. Just tell the rioters he might show up. That will be good enough.

That's not true. Our police can and do use lethal force on criminals. It's just that when they do so, it needs to be justified. The trigger of these riots was bad PR following such an incident. (Which may have been justified; it's too early to say. There were early reports that one policeman had been shot, and would have died had the bullet not hit his radio. Forensic evidence showed that the bullet came from a police gun, and the criminal appears not to have fired a shot. Investigations are on-going. It doesn't help that the police have a history of cover-ups after such incidents, and the public don't automatically believe the police account.)

These riots got out of control largely because the police weren't prepared for them, because we've not had anything like it for a generation. It's probably a good thing that the rioters weren't armed with guns.

Homeowners can legally use lethal force defensively in the UK. This has been tested in the courts time after time. What we can't do is chase a burglar down the street and then shoot him in the back.

First you need a firearm, in your home, loaded or at least with ammunition readily available.

Wasn't there a farmer in Britain who went to prison for shooting a bad guy inside his home? As I recall that didn't go well.

It's been a long time since I lived in the UK, but your media reports seem to indicate that this isn't always true:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-homeowner.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/758751-hero-son-is-held-for-burglar-murder

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...ice-system.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319925/posts

The law in the UK permits the use of "reasonable force" in defence of ones person or property.
In extreme cases reasonable force might be considered to include lethal force.

Unfortunatly, the police and the courts often seem to start from the presumption that any force is unreasonable. Especialy if a weapon such as a knife, bat,hammer, or even worse a firearm was used.
In law, a lot depends on the intent of the defender, which is not easily proved in court.
To grab a knife from ones kitchen if frightened by a burglar MIGHT be regarded as reasonable.
To sleep with a knife beside the bed, though not illegal in itself, might be regarded as a sign of intent to kill a thief.
The legal argument against a householder who injured a thief with a weapon kept to hand would be something like
"did you keep a knife beside your bed"
"yes sir"
"why did you keep a knife beside the bed"
"because I feared burglars sir"
"on hearing a sound, did you grab this weapon"
"yes sir, I did"
"so in fact, you planned and prepared to potentialy kill an intruder. This was not an impulsive act in the stress of the moment, but you planned it by keeping a lethal weapon ready for use, against anyone, without any care as to safety of the other party in this tragic incident, who was unarmed, not dangerous and merely wandered in through the door out of curiosity.
As a result of your planned murderous attack, a promising young student lies dead"
"but sir they forced the door and I feared for my safety"
"there is no evidence that they forced the door, the surviving one says they found it forced open by others and came in to check on you, to which you responded with lethal force"

There have been a number of cases in the UK in which householders and business owners have been imprisioned for what some would regards a self defence.
In other cases they have been aquited, but the odds dont look good.

I think that was pretty decent job of explaining things Adam.

The act of maintaining possession of the "weapon" is rather frequently being treated a de facto evidence that you committed a premeditated crime. In the UK there doesn't appear to be any way to be prepared in advance to defend yourself with lethal force without getting caught in this catch 22.

I will close with the disclaimer that I have not done a lot of research on the matter and would be very pleased (for those in the UK) if I am completely off base.

If only the looters and rioters had been given a good talking to, when they were 6 years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tayLynbWqfM

Ok. I had to follow that link and that was awesome.

Thanks AFLM

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.