Is Self Defense Illegal in the U.K.?

[Frank Merton]

The idea that there is some sort of right to kill someone in self defense is one of the sicknesses of the culture of much of the west. In Vietnam, kill someone, and proving self-defense will keep you from being executed but it will not prevent a manslaughter conviction. About the only thing that will do that is clear evidence that the death was accidental and from the attacker's own actions and all you were doing was warding off blows or trying to get away.

[Mr.United_Nations]

What goes in someones head when they fire a gun?

To injure? To kill? For enjoyment?

[Wickian]

The idea that there is some sort of right to kill someone in self defense is one of the sicknesses of the culture of much of the west. In Vietnam, kill someone, and proving self-defense will keep you from being executed but it will not prevent a manslaughter conviction. About the only thing that will do that is clear evidence that the death was accidental and from the attacker's own actions and all you were doing was warding off blows or trying to get away.

This is just a difference of opinion I suppose. I personally don't consider it a bad thing at all if a criminal gets killed while committing a crime, that just means there's one less criminal in the world to prey on people in the future.

[+OverSword]

The idea that there is some sort of right to kill someone in self defense is one of the sicknesses of the culture of much of the west. In Vietnam, kill someone, and proving self-defense will keep you from being executed but it will not prevent a manslaughter conviction. About the only thing that will do that is clear evidence that the death was accidental and from the attacker's own actions and all you were doing was warding off blows or trying to get away.

Wouldn't the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your life wasn't in danger? Tough to prove since one good blow to the head can kill. How can you be found guilty of manslaughter if failure to act as you did could have resulted in your own death? If that's really the way it works over there I feel sorry for your people.

[Thorvir]

The idea that there is some sort of right to kill someone in self defense is one of the sicknesses of the culture of much of the west. In Vietnam, kill someone, and proving self-defense will keep you from being executed but it will not prevent a manslaughter conviction. About the only thing that will do that is clear evidence that the death was accidental and from the attacker's own actions and all you were doing was warding off blows or trying to get away.

Oh brother....the shining civilization or moral values that is Vietnam.

/ranton

I see you haven't changed. You'd still rather have your family/loved ones slaughtered before your eyes instead of taking out (killing) the assailant if the chance were available. This just reveals the cowardly sickness in your head, and you disgust me at times. I'm so glad that I don't have to rely on you for help in case something goes down, and I sincerely pity those around you.

Now I remembered why I had you on ignore...so back to it.

/rantoff

[Leonardo]

sure they are all corrupt, by defenition, but how does it matter, in regards to bull you said about GZ trial? it does not. you have no valid arguments here. so you switched to personal remarks, lamo.

i actually somewhat agree with you, his personal past should have been considered, than there would be no trial. TM had his hand on a door knob yet he turned around and went looking for troubble, well he found it. clear case of thug mentality

Or a case of a kid who was finally sick and tired of being 'profiled', so decided to stand up to someone who was 'profiling' and harassing him.

But he's a young, black man in a hoodie - so naturally a 'thug', right?

And I know you didn't mention race when profiling, but it was implicit in what you wrote.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Leonardo

[KariW]

Grey Area, This was an excellent post, and very well presented! We just have different points of view on things, and that is OK! I do want to respond to a few points from the victim's side of the issue, instead of the criminals.

I also feel I am being somehow mis-represented here.

I know the feeling:

"especially when many of them are either really dumb......."

If you pull that trigger what happens next will change your life.

I would certainly hope so, when you are faced with death and it gives you the chance to live, instead of dying a horrible death at the hands of your enemy. For me personally, it would be a totally liberating experience, because of the great feeling that comes from saying - I REFUSE to allow you to turn me into a victim today in any way, shape, or form! And make no mistake, criminals who have invaded your home, IMO, are the "enemy" when it comes to the "Castle Doctrine", and they have declared Open War on me and my family!

In battle, It is my understanding, that soldiers are not trained to sit down with the enemy to discuss their motives and feelings over why they are committing these acts of terror, and they are acts of terror, which I will address a little later. Soldiers are taught to react instinctively to perceived threats and to rely on muscle memory to kill the enemy to protect themselves and their brothers in arms in hostile situations, so they don't have to consciously think about their actions. Make no mistake, when I am in a hostile situation, I will react accordingly to protect my family.

Unlike the movies, people generally don't die from trauma in a nice quick and clean fashion, they have tendencies to bleed out, scream, cry and beg for their parents, beg for forgiveness or if the bullet is somewhere particularly critical make very guttural truly horrific noises that alone will cause sleepless nights for years. They also tend to soil themselves and will generally reveal them for the sack of meat and liquid that we all are.

Just a little background, on my personal experiences with death - I am by no means a stranger to death, having dealt with it on a day to day basis working in both Hospice, and in Nursing Homes. In the final stages of death, near the very end, some patients will exhibit the death rattle. I have always found it particularly disturbing (even more so than performing post mortem care), and yes it does cause sleepless nights, especially if you have developed a relationship with that patient - we agree on that!

In nursing, a standard practice is to turn the patient every 2 hours to prevent bed sores, and for comfort measures. Sometimes just repositioning the patient can cause them to expire. There have been so many times, when I knew the patient was close to death, having showed signs of cyanosis, and that after rolling the patient they would take that last gasp of air and expire. It happens a lot. The repositioning of a patient can be just as lethal as an overdose of morphine. Personally I am against repositioning the patient in the final hours for this reason. Once in a while, someone dies in your arms that isn't on pain meds or in a medical coma. They fight it, and you can see the panic in their eyes as they fight to live - It is a very hard thing to witness. Their passing is by no means peaceful and it sticks with you for a very, very long time. - we agree on that! All you can do is be there for them, and let them know they are not alone.

After they have passed, one of your duties is to provide post mortem care, which has never really bothered me, because for me it was a very solemn and sacred act of kindness, and a way of honoring the life of the individual you have been caring for.

He was also a victim.

I can see you point about this criminal being victimized by an abusive father, and IMO, that is an entirely different issue that should be addressed, but it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the acts of terror he committed against innocent victims, by invading their homes to commit a crime, because he had a choice. He also had a choice to knock politely on my door, and explain his situation to me. If he had, I would have done everything in my power to help him - but no he chose to violate my rights as a human being.

My point is, you don't know the circumstances behind a person or their motives.

I could care less about the criminals/terrorist's motives when they don't care in the slightest degree about my rights as a human being. Period! Absolutely no sympathy here! If you terrorize people by your illegal actions, you will get no respect. IMO, you have to earn respect through your actions, which includes respecting other peoples rights.

... there are generally reasons people commit criminal acts (excluding the majority of sexual crimes), and contrary to popular belief, they are rarely out of greed or even to hurt the victim.

This is your opinion, and I respect that. But I totally disagree with the statement that criminal acts are rarely committed out of greed or even to hurt the victim, as I believe that just the opposite is true. IMO, most of the time, they intend to terrorize their victims as a means of control and inflict as much psychological damage, pain, and suffering as possible. Through violent intimidation, they attempt to terrorize their victims with threatening gestures to force them to comply. If this wasn't the case, and the didn't use terrorist tactics, most victim's wouldn't comply with their demands. Criminal terrorists do not only use this tactic in cases of rape, but it is also used successfully in robberies, kidnapping, and car-jacking. As a victim, I have the right to counter this tactic with deadly force, and bring the situation to a quick end and put my immediate fears, pain, and suffering to an end. Period!

In what could be a life and death situation, I do not have the time to sit and ponder about the criminals reasons for committing his acts of terror when he invades my hoe, or if he was feeling isolated and scared ( which I think is complete hogwash. If he is so scared, why is he not hiding out somewhere instead of committing acts of terror?). At that very moment I am dealing with my own terror which is a perfectly normal human reaction in life and death situations, because it only takes a split second of hesitation, and you're DEAD! I did not ask to be put in this situation, and if someone places me in a situation where I have to protect my life and property, they should pay the ultimate consequences for their actions! Under Texas Law, Penal code sec. 9.32, 9.33 and sec 9.42, you are allowed to protect yourself and your property with lethal force under certain circumstances.

In the UK, there is now a reasonably controversial scheme called restorative justice,

As for your program of restorative justice, which I have never heard of before, and I have no idea if it is used in the US. I would hope that it is optional and not mandated by the courts. I believe that it should be up to the victim to decide if they want to participate. If the process brings them piece of mind and is focused entirely on the victim - fine. But if it is about having a pitty party for the criminal, I want nothing to do about it because I would totally resent being asked to participate in a process where I have to sit and listen to this criminals motives behind his acts of terror, and his conscious decisions to inflict pain and suffering on others. In fact, If this were the case, I would view the procedure as an act of revictimization. These are just my personal views on the subject.

I also resent the fact that the criminal by his actions has purposely placed me in a situation, where I am terrorized to the point where I am in fear of my life and very survival. The psychological trauma of that act alone can permanently affect a person's sense of security, and can even begin to affect their health, through loss of sleep. Not to mention the continued suffering of the victim who may wake up in cold seats for the rest of their lives from terrifying nightmares. And you want me to feel sorry for the sadistic monster who has caused so much psychological pain and suffering? NOT going to happen. They brought it upon themselves through THEIR actions. If they do not consider my feelings when they terrorize my family by breaking into my home, why should I care about their feelings? The focus should always be entirely on the innocent victims of the specific crime in question, without any consideration whatsoever for the criminal's feelings.

It doesn't always work....but it is all about seeing people and not instantly defining them by their actions, because we are defined by our experiences and our environment, and we are all responsible for the environment we live in.

I totally disagree with that last statement for several reasons:

1. I always define a person by their conscious actions, when those actions are intentionally harmful to others or violate their rights.

2. I also do not believe that a person is defined by their environment because IMO, your life is what you make of it. I was raised to take personal responsibility for my actions with NO excuses.

3. I also don’t believe that we are ALL responsible for the environment we live in. When it comes to our environment, I am responsible for MY actions only, and I absolutely refuse to allow anyone to try to lay a phony guilt trip on me for the illegal actions and evil behavior of others. I resent it and it just doesn’t fly with me.

Just one last thing, when it comes to respecting life, IMO, people who terrorize, rape, murder, and commit violent crimes against innocent victims, have lost all their rights to be treated as human beings. I have absolutely no tolerance for pure evil!

Grey Area, Please do not take personal offence to my statements, as they are in not meant in that way - I am just trying to present the real victim's side of things during a violent encounter with criminals. We all have a right to differing points of view! Hope you have a wonderful day!

Edited June 5, 2015 by KariW

[KariW]

ROTFLMAO! Had to go fix my husband breakfast, and when I came back, I noticed the following typos:

...when he invades my hoe,

hoe should be change to home! cold seats, to cold sweats

Giggling my silly head off! :lol:

Edited June 5, 2015 by KariW

[.ZZ.]

The idea that there is some sort of right to kill someone in self defense is one of the sicknesses of the culture of much of the west. In Vietnam, kill someone, and proving self-defense will keep you from being executed but it will not prevent a manslaughter conviction. About the only thing that will do that is clear evidence that the death was accidental and from the attacker's own actions and all you were doing was warding off blows or trying to get away.

Normally I would bite my tongue and continue to read your post that bad mouth America, but sir, you have got some nerve comparing Viet-Nam to America!

Having spent a year of my life in that Hell hole I made some observations.

Your rivers are nothing more than open sewers, contaminated with human and animal waste, and some of your people actually wash their clothes in that stinking filth.

Many of your citizens squat in the street and blacken their teeth eating betel nuts because they have no other place to go living under your Communist rule. http://www.hrw.org/w...hapters/vietnam

Political prisoners are are filling your bamboo jails.

You have the gall to criticize OUR Constitution?

[aztek]

And I know you didn't mention race when profiling, but it was implicit in what you wrote.

that is how you see it, and it says a lot about you. and i did not do any profiling, so you saw something that was not there again.

Edited June 5, 2015 by aztek

[Grey Area]

ROTFLMAO! Had to go fix my husband breakfast, and when I came back, I noticed the following typos:

...when he invades my hoe,

hoe should be change to home! cold seats, to cold sweats

Giggling my silly head off! :lol:

Hi Kari loving the typos, been a day of that. I read a report today about a child I am working with that stated he has trouble making fiends. Anyway I will respond to your post made earlier soon I am currently responding with my phone and cannot get to a computer due to a sleeping baby on my shoulder

But I would like to thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote. I think we may have to agree to disagree on a few points but thus far this has been a very thought provoking discussion.

[KariW]

Hi Gray Area! O yeah, We can definitely agree to disagree! I don't like endeing a debate on unfriendly terms! You won't believe the problems I had trying to post that! So frustrating! Had it done in word, and copy and pasting was an absolute mess, so I had to retype it in the thread! Felt sorry for my husband, as he was being so patient, and I could hear his stomach growling!

Tried several times last night to post it, and the formatting was totally unreadable. Don't think its a problem with UM. Just funky HTML code and Word code messing things up. I quess!

Take care, and have a great evening, or morning! LOL!

[Ralaman]

Soon the Liberal Clowns will make self defense illegal in the US. Because we all know that cowardly little criminals have rights too. And if you infringe upon their right to rob you at gunpoint then you will bring upon thee the force of a thousand latte drinking hippies from the depths of Castle Starbucks.

[Wyrdlight]

People are getting two legal issues confused. That of use of reasonable force and secondly possession and classification of offensive weaponry.

Law states clearly you may use reasonable force. Guy comes at you with a knife, you grab a brick and brain him with I, that's fine, you were certain you were about to die and he had a blade, your response was reasonable.

The police would arrest you but it's almost certain it would never get to court or be dismissed by a judge.

The issue of weapons Is how they are defined under English law there are three kinds from memory. Not sure if I recall all the details right..

Manufactured - a knife, a gun, a hand grenade the mins of thing you would be arrested on the assumption it was anice offensive weapon unless you could prove otherwise

Altered - is a every day item converted into a weapon, a home made blade, bat with nails in. Same treatment as above.

Intended - this can be ANYTHING you state you will use, or use a weapon. Keys, handbag, umbrella, a sock. The key word is intended, if you say you planned to use it all along then you may be considered to be in possession if anew offensive weapon as you state you intend to use it as such.

These laws are not really anything to do with self defense and reasonable force as all of them can be used legally if deemed reasonable.